- Email: [email protected]
Structurationist Geography
Structurationist Geography B. Werlen, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Jena, Germany & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Glossary Geography-Making The core concept of praxiscentered research addresses all forms of constitutional processes of geographical realities and related geographical imaginations of the world. It encompasses the analysis of all kinds of singnificative/symbolic, normative, and rationale appropriations of spatial facts as well as the transformation of nature and the productions of spatial patterns of material artifacts (infrastructures, settlements, urban networks, etc.) on the basis of this different forms of appropriation and power relations in form of rules (schemes of meaning attribution and interpretation) and (allocative and autoritative) resources. Locale/Setting It denotes a spatial context of action as a setting for action constituted by material elements as well as by sets of social norms and culturally shared values, to be understood as a material, socio-economic and socio-cultural constellation of action with intersubjective shared meaning contents. Therefore, it is an action-related concept that cannot be turned into an objective fact or a generalized as a social category, having the same meaning for members of a society (in a certain region). Place It denotes a position in a spatial continuum with a certain specific meaning, expression of processes of appropriation. These processes can, for instance, be based on economic actions, including value attribution in the sense of the ‘central place theory’, on normative actions related to territorial regulations or to symbolicemotive appropriations, expressed by feelings of belonging. Regionalization It is traditionally understood as an academic practice of spatial delimitation of natural, social, economical, cultural, or political spheres of reality. According to the perspective of structurationist human/social geography, it is understood as an everyday practice, not for delimitating the ’world’ spatially, but rather using spatial references for the economical, political, cultural etc. structuring of social realities. Therefore, the key issue is world-binding for the performance of human or more precisely: social agency as forms of appropriations on the basis of spatial concepts. Spatial Disembedding The ontological pre-condition of globalization, based on agency or action orientations strictly separated from time in the sense that the ‘where’ and ‘when’ of acting is open to negotiations and not anymore tied to each other by tradition. The interrelated
50
‘lifting out’ of late-modern institutions and of social relations in general from local contexts and their reformation across indefinite spans of time-space is called time-space distanciation. As major disembedding mechanisms are regarded symbolic tokens (like writing, money, credit cards, etc.) and expert systems (infrastructure of transportation, electronic communication etc.), enabling actions over distance in real time, provoking as well an enormous acceleration of speed of life and social transformation as a crisis of the nation-state. Spatial Embedding The ontological condition primarily of traditional societies and cultures, based on the unity of space and time, enclosing a local and regional anchoring of social institutions and religious practices, very often linked to powerful processes of reification mythification. One of the major characteristics lies in the dominance of face-to-face communication, and the nearly complete absence of space-time distanciation. These two characteristics encompasses a rather narrow spatial clustering of traditional societies and cultures, expressed by quite clear spatial borders of local and regional traditions and cultures, study object of traditional regional geography. Under conditions of globalization ‘spatial embedding’ is the product of reembedding activities of in principal dis-embedded social and cultural relations. World Binding Key concept of action/agencycentered human/social geography, based on the shift from a space-centered geographical imagination to the analysis of the everyday geography-making. It expresses the basic assumption, that the postulation of the study of societies and cultures in space or the study of space includes to a certain extend the acceptance of a (pre-modern) concept of an absolute and material (container) space. An action/agency-centered perspective develops a worldview in which the embodied subjects form the nucleus of geographic research, analyzing how they bring the ‘world’ to themselves under spatially dis-embedded conditions (space-time distanciation/globalization), on the basis of everyday regionalizations, specific forms of appropriations and specific power relations. Zoning It denotes further differentiation of regions for specific activities in spatial as well as temporal respect. Spatial specifications of the region ‘house’, for instance, include the distinction of ‘living room’ (meeting other persons), ‘kitchen’ (cooking, eating), the temporal distinction, for instance, the separation of daytime (living
Structurationist Geography room and kitchen in the basement) and nighttime (sleeping rooms on the first floor). Zoning involves activity-related differentiations at all possible scales, from one single room to global scope and time unites, from seconds to day, seasons, years, etc.
Structuration Theory and the Spatial Contexts of Social Agency In his theory of structuration, Giddens develops a specific vocabulary to overcome one of the most problematic shortcomings of the classic social theories of Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and others, thereby integrating space and spatiality into the theory of social practice. The three spatial key concepts are: ‘locale/setting’, ‘region’, and ‘zone’. The first term is ‘locale’. Giddens explicitly differentiates between this and the geographical concept of ‘place’, in order to show that the contextuality of actions, not the physical realm, is central. ‘Locale’ refers to a piece of space used for a specific activity that is already organized by pregiven material interactions. In short, we can understand ‘locale’ as a material context, or the constellations of actions which acquires a specific social meaning intersubjectively as well. Giddens occasionally uses the term ‘setting’ as in ‘setting for interaction’ for this. But setting is by far, not just a spatial parameter or a physical containment of social interaction. ‘Setting’ has rather to be understood as an element that is mobilized as an inherent part of interaction. An example is a house. A locale can only be called a ‘house’ if we observe that this material context has the furnishings for living in and is treated in that way. According to the context of action, a locale can be a house, a street corner, a city, or the territory of a state. Consequentially, the determination that a constellation is a ‘locale/setting’ does not depend on the size or spatial dimensions, but rather from the way in which actions are carried out. Every locale is ‘regionalized’ in space and time. A house, for example, has floors, hallways, and rooms. Regionalization thus means a first specification of the ‘social definition’ of certain spatial slices or locales ‘in relation to certain ways of acting’. This does not foreground the physical, worldly expression or the material characteristics of a region in the (traditional) geographic sense. It is, again, a combination of the social and spatial categories or characteristics. Seen in this light, a region should be understood within a ‘locale/setting’ as a social part of the situation or the context of action delimited by symbolic marking which can be ascertained by physical and material relations (walls, lines, rivers, valley, etc.). A region within a locale refers ‘to aspects of the settings which are
51
normatively implicated in systems of interaction, such that they are in some way ‘set apart’, for certain types of activities.’ ‘Regionalization’ can be further differentiated according to type, length of time, and character. Determining the ‘form’ of the regionalization refers to the type of borders that define the region and can be determined by physical or symbolic markers. Seen physically, this can mean the walls between individual rooms or mountain chains between larger pieces of space. Seen socially, these translate into understandings that one does not sleep in the kitchen, or that the borderlines of regional differentiation represent significant social characteristics of spatially positioned persons of a population, such as between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’ of England. This means that regions can differ in their spatial and temporal extents. Consequently, the intersection of ‘spans’ of space and time may be variable. But the social maintenance of regions of a bigger span (like nation-states, international markets, etc.) necessarily depends – and that is a consequence of the social nature of regions and borders as elements of social action – in general upon a high degree of institutionalization. Only on that basis, a stabilization in the form of social reproduction is possible. By the ‘character’ of regionalization, Giddens refers to ‘the modes’ in which the time–space organization of locales is structured within an embracing social system. ‘Modes’ can be understood as the overarching spatial organizing principle, which governs a certain encompassing social system. As an example, preindustrial economic systems rarely led to sharp divisions between familial and work life. Already in industrial societies, there is however a clear differentiation between living space and workspaces. The corresponding organizing principle here can be characterized as a ‘functional division’ between and within production and reproduction zones. ‘Zoning’ refers to the further differentiation of regions. This means that, for example, specific rooms are only defined for specific activities: the living room is for meeting and receiving guests, the kitchen is for cooking and perhaps also for eating, and so on. Within production facilities, this could be zone of production, administration, and rest. Regionalization and zoning are mostly combined with time, such that time–space regionalization and zoning result, which can be seen in an English house, is as follows: the upstairs includes the rooms which are used for activities at night, the ground floor for daytime activities. Temporal zoning, however, is also central in a more encompassing manner. The clear division into day and night can be held for the fundamental differentiation of social life into zones of exertion and relaxation in all societies, and the needs of the human organism for regular periods of sleep are governed by it. In this way, ‘nighttime’ forms a very clear ‘border’ for social activities as much as any spatial boundary. In other theaters, zoning occurs according to weekly, monthly, or even yearly rhythms.
52
Structurationist Geography
The Integration of the Theory of Structuration into New Regional Geography The first attempt to integrate the spatially enlarged social theory of structuration into the geographical worldview has been undertaken by Derek Gregory in his project of a critical new regional geography. The main characteristic of that attempt lies rather in the integration of a social theoretical perspective into regional research than in a critical transposition of a metadisciplinary position into a new disciplinary framework. Unlike traditional geography, Gregory’s regional geography – based initially on Habermas’ writing and later on Giddens’ critical theory – is not founded on physical geographical conditions but on criteria that are derived from social or structuration theory respectively. Starting with the question of how societal realities are regionally formed and articulated, Gregory then wants to pave the way for appropriate regional political or scientific interventions. The major thesis of the project is that spatial structures are somehow incorporated in social structures and vice versa. The empirical regional study ‘Regional transformation and industrial revolution’ is the first to encompass a systematic geographical discussion of Giddens’ structuration theory (see Figure 1). The transformation comprises three steps of decoding: In the ‘first step’, the central stages of transformation and the transformation power of regional realities are identified. The changes in the wool industry are regarded as expressions of structuration processes, that is, as results of transforming social reality by means of rule-governed human action. Being differently equipped with authoritative and allocative resources, actions are seen as the basis for the reproduction of social structures.
Power
Sanction
Interpretative scheme
Facility
Norm
Signification
Domination
Legitimation
System of Communication interaction
Modality
Structure
In the ‘second step’, the transformation of labor into capital and the consequences of this structuration process are empirically analyzed. Changes in the labor process encompass, above all, technical innovations and evolving routinization of work steps, gender-specific division of labor, chronic unemployment, vanishing of the inviolability of landowners, etc. All together, these processes are to be seen as expressions of the oncoming convertibility of private property, which turns labor into a commodity and thus working hours into objects of exchange. To explore these changes in their regional appearance is the second task of the ‘new regional geography’. The ‘third step’ commences with an analysis of the time–spatial consequences of the latter two aspects. Subsequently, it should be reconstructed how time–spatial aspects of action help to ‘prevail’ what has been singled out in the first two steps of decoding, that is, the identification of the transformative power and the regional transformation analysis. Analyzing the changing rhythms of daily and annual activities within the spheres of household and workplace (which are separated under the capitalist regime) is a central aspect of structuration processes and geographical regional research. It is assumed that this casts a light on the regional transformations of societal realities. These three steps together with an analysis of the theoretically inferred link between the three subject areas should allow two things: first, a deeper understanding of uneven regional developments, second, an insight into the ‘mechanisms’ of the spatial differentiation of society, especially the varying regional constitution of class relations. Alan Pred’s reference to Giddens’ structuration theory is embedded in his interest in Ha¨gerstrand’s time geography. Above all, Pred wants to reconstruct the historical becoming of places and regions as expressions of structuration processes. Consequently, a given region has to be
Figure 1 Gregory’s reference to the structuration theory. From Gregory, D. (1982). Regional Transformation and Industrial Revolution: A Geography of Yorkshire Woollen Industry, p 17. London: Macmillan.
Structurationist Geography
Third, it is assumed that there is a meaning of place that – although it does not exist as an independent entity – is part of the growing consciousness of an individual: according to Pred, the meaning of place is to be treated as an object of regional research just as the constitution of biographies and the consequences of regional institutions are. At this point, it becomes even more obvious than in the two preceding points that what is analyzed as regionally constituted cannot be the object of regional research per se. If the meaning of place is said to be a mental issue, it can just not be material at the same time and therefore not be located topographically. It is a mental or social entity that can be extremely relevant for regional processes without having a regional existence. Consequently, it can be addressed as a crucial element for the process of regionalization, but not as a regional object. This shows that the application of structuration theory and social theory in general to social geography cannot lead to regional geography, but rather to the investigation or processes of regionalization, what in fact is the original intention of Pred, but is not what he suggested. In the early 1980s, Nigel Thrift successfully incorporated structuration theory into an outline of contextual regional research. The key concepts of this reorientation of regional research are ‘locale’ and ‘social action’. With reference to Giddens, locale designates a certain portion of physical space that already displays a specific pattern of material objects and persons. That is, to say, locale is the material context, the given constellation for action and interaction. This constellation is also labeled ‘setting’. In order to scientifically demarcate a region as a spatial interaction structure, an in-depth understanding of interaction is necessary. Interaction is interpreted as an activity linking social and spatial structure by means of institutional interrelations. Consequently, a ‘region’ cannot be regarded as a pre-given
understood and analyzed as the result of transformation processes. The objective is to examine regions within the analytical frame of a structurationist ‘theory of place’. In this context, the structurationist comprehension of ‘place’ and ‘region’ becomes important. For Pred, the becoming of ‘place/region’ always implies two social processes: the appropriation of ‘space’ and the transformation of ‘nature’. Every place or region is an expression of these two processes (Figure 2). The historical becoming of a ‘place’ or ‘region’ by means of appropriating ‘space’ and transforming ‘nature’ is, as Pred stresses, inseparably bound to the reproduction and transformation of society in space and time. Accordingly, the process of societal transformation and reproduction is bound to the becoming of ‘place/region’ by means of the appropriation of ‘space’ and the transformation of ‘nature’. Consequently, the distinctiveness or uniqueness of every place and every region is an expression of the agent’s historically variable interpretation of these processes under historically specific, contingent conditions. The ‘theory of place’ comprises three main points: first, the ‘institutional projects’. Their shaping has an influence on daily routines and paths of the participants of these institutions. This shaping of routines and paths has strong implications for the place; additionally, they leave traces in the landscape and they influence power relations. As a consequence, social structures in Giddens’ sense become particularly important. Second, Pred suggests examining the formation of biographies as an expression of structuration processes ‘within’ a place; that is, to say, the influence of the place/region on a person’s life. Thus, place/region is regarded to play a key role in the formation of biographies. Regional studies should disclose this constitutive power.
Become one another
Become one another
Intersection of individual paths and institutional projects (practice)
Establishment, reproduction, and transformation of power relations (structure)
53
Genres de vie and social reproduction Spatial and social division of labor (production and distribution) Sedimentation of other cultural and social forms Biography formation and socialization Language acquisition Personality development Development of conciousness
Transformation of nature
Occur simultaneously
Figure 2 Components of ‘place’ and ‘region’. From Pred, A. (1986). Place, Practice and Structure, p 11. Cambridge: Polity Press.
54
Structurationist Geography
place or corporeal entity. Instead, demarcating a region should be the objective of scientific research. It is to find out which ‘settings’ of interactions are to be joined in order to form what then can justifiably be called a ‘region’. Every region is, above all, to be understood as enabling and restricting actions. Both options decisively influence the life paths of the individuals living there. Consequently, the structure of the arrangement pattern of ‘locales’ is regarded as an expression of the social structure. In this regard, the varying importance of different settings is crucial. The organization of production determines which settings become dominant. They are characterized by the fact that time ‘must’ be allocated to them.
Discussion The aim, however, is to outline a conception of geographical research that, on the one hand, is not only social-theoretically informed but in a consistent way compatible with the basic principles of social research and, on the other hand, aims at a more thorough incorporation of spatial and temporal contexts of social action. This aim is not fully achieved by first attempts to integrate structuration theory in geographical world perspective. The main problems are insufficient theoretical reflections of the geographical concept of Earth-space and a misapprehension of modern and latemodern social, ontological conditions. These, however, have to be taken into account, if human and social geography wants to adequately represent late-modern geographical conditions and consequently be relevant for everyday life. Before the problematic aspects of the adaptation of structuration theory to geography are to be discussed, it should also be mentioned, that some of the identified problems are integral to structuration theory itself. The main problem of this adaptation lies in the fact, that ‘places’ as well as ‘regions’ are considered in the existing shape, or even regarded as historically pregiven and fixed. Human actions are analyzed ‘in’ regions and not as the region-building forces. That is to say, action is not considered as a constitutive power for the social formation of place and region. In the course of establishing a new regional geography, the core principle inspired by structuration theory: ‘people produce history and places’ moves toward a quite different governing principle: ‘people are produced by history and places’ implying that times, spaces, or places can constitute meanings and have a socializing effect. Consequently, Pred suggests that places/regions do exist as such – but only as a constant flow of human practice. The latter, however, would imply that place/region can only be seen
as an element of social praxis/action, but not existing as such in the form of a spatial reality in itself. Giddens proposes that analyzing the processes of regionalization could be the specific, most important, or even legitimizing task of contemporary geography. This notion is reformulated in Gregory’s, Pred’s, and Thrift’s adaptations to a research program of the constitution and transformation processes of historically pregiven political regions. In doing so, they miss recognizing the social meaning of regionalization for the reproduction of social realities. Then the program shows clearly that, still, the explanation of a given geographical phenomenon forms the center of scientific interest. All together, the AngloSaxon reception of structuration theory lacks a comprehensive embeddedness in social theory. Instead, structurationist geography should rather interpret the signification of geography-making as a core dimension of the constitution process of social and cultural realities as well as of the reproduction of power. Moreover, it should reflect social theoretical implications of space conceptions and late-modern living conditions. In this regard, it is not sufficient to apply structuration theory to regional analysis. But also for a productive application to the social-scientific analysis of everyday geography-making, the theory has to be revised radically. Its internal contradictions have to be overcome for appropriate geographical research. Above all, this excludes regarding ‘space’ and ‘time’ as special powers of the constitution of society. Giddens’ problematic incorporation of ‘space’ has to be revised in the sense that, it can be made compatible with the core principles and assumptions of structuration theory. In short, a more radical implementation of the structurationist perspective into human geographical research has, first of all, to clarify the current geographical condition, the current ontology spatial and temporal relations and its relevance for the constitution of sociocultural realities; second, to theorize ‘space’ in the context of social action or agency; third, to put the processes of regionalization in the center of geographical research interest, and finally, to redefine processes of regionalization under globalized conditions of local actions.
Late-Modern Ontology and Structurationist Geography If we start from the premise that all kinds of spatial relations are constituted historically under certain social and cultural conditions, we have, above all, to spell out the basic principles of that interconnection. For this, the construction of ideal types should allow to identify certain characteristic aspects in the interrelation of the sociocultural and spatial. The first question, then, is: what conditions have to be given or have to hold, if the spatial
Structurationist Geography
description of societies and cultures should be possible, as required by geographical methodology? The first hypothetical answer to this question is that traditional life forms come very close. The most important spatiotemporal characteristics of traditional life forms and regional societies can – in ideal typical form – be summarized as shown in Table 1. Stability over time or embeddedness in a temporal respect is based on the domination of local traditions. Traditions connect past and future and are the central frame of reference for action, orientation, and legitimization in daily praxis. They set narrow bounds for individual decisions. Social relations are predominantly ruled by kinship-, tribe-, or rank-relations. Depending on birth, age, or sex, clearly defined social positions are attributed to persons. Narrow spatial limitations, or ‘embeddedness’ in a spatial sense, lie in the technical standards of transportation and communication. The predominance of walking and the limited significance of writing restrict social and cultural expressions to the local and regional level. Faceto-face interaction is almost the only possible situation for communication. Additionally, production processes have to respect natural conditions because of technological development. Economies are, consequently, highly adapted to the prevailing physical conditions. In addition – as many anthropological studies teach us – temporal, spatial, and sociocultural aspects of everyday praxis are closely bound together. For traditional life forms, it is important not only to carry out certain activities at a certain time, but also in a certain place and sometimes even with a certain spatial orientation. In this way, social regulations and activity patterns are reproduced and enforced by unreflexive spatiotemporal commitments. The unity of sociocultural and spatiotemporal dimensions of activities becomes the basis for extremely powerful reification processes. In this way, for example, places of worship are identified with the act of worship. Only in this way is it possible to claim that somebody who puts his or her feet on a certain place also desecrates that place. But this can only appear as a meaningful
Table 1 societies
Ideal type of traditional life forms and regional
55
phrase, if there is no distinction made between significance and place. To put it another way: only when the significance is seen as a quality of the place itself and not as a product of the subjects’ constitution process, only then is it possible to talk about desecrating places. Based on this process of reification, ‘space’ and ‘time’ are loaded, are filled up with specific meanings. Signification appears as a quality of things, deeply rooted in them and embedded in the territory of a given culture. Under such conditions, regional geography consequently appears a meaningful scientific project. Under late-modern conditions, however, the project of traditional as well as ‘new regional geography’ aiming at spatial representations of life conditions and of life forms is confronted with serious limitations. ‘Late-modern life forms’ are the basis and expression of the globalization process. Here, traditions are not at the center of daily social praxis. Social orientations and social actions need – as a consequence of modernity – discursive justification and legitimization. The dominant life contexts are spatially and temporally ‘disembedded’. The disembedding mechanisms are grounded in the history of modernization. These mechanisms are at the core of the transformation of the space–society nexus, leading today to the globalization of our life conditions. Temporal stability is replaced by constant social transformation. Late-modern everyday actions are not dominated by local traditions. It is rather routines that sustain ontological security. For individual decisions, a wide field of possibilities stays open. Globally observable cultures, life styles, and life forms (Table 2) – very often linked to a specific generation – become much more important. A person’s social position is determined by production and valued work and – following the principles of the enlightenment – not by birth or age, nor by sex or race. The spatial clustering and embeddedness of traditional social life forms is replaced by global interconnections and disembedding mechanisms. The actual and potential reach of actors is stretched to a global dimension. The most important disembedding mechanisms
Table 2 societies
Ideal type of late-modern life forms and globalized
Traditions intertwine past, present, and future Kinship organizes and stabilizes social relations over time Birth, age, and sex determine social positions Face-to-face situations dominate communication Small amount of interregional communication The local village constitutes the familiar life context
1. Everyday routines sustain ontological security 2. Globally observable cultures, life forms, and lifestyles 3. Production and valued work determine social positions 4. Abstract systems (money, writing, and expert systems) enable mediated social relations over enormous distances 5. Worldwide communication systems 6. Global village as anonymous context of experience
Traditional life forms are temporally and spatially embedded. From Werlen, B. (1995). Sozialgeographie allta¨glicher Regionalisierungen. Band 1: Zur Ontologie von Gesellschaft und Raum, p 104. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Late-modern life forms are spatially and temporally disembedded. From Werlen, B. (1995). Sozialgeographie allta¨glicher Regionalisierungen. Band 1: Zur Ontologie von Gesellschaft und Raum, p 134. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
56
Structurationist Geography
are money, writing, and technical artifacts. Means of transportation enable a high level of mobility. Together with individual freedom of movement, this produces a mixing of formerly locally fixed cultures. This multicultural mixing, combined with global communication systems, enables a diffusion of information and information storing that is not dependent on the corporeal presence of the actors. Of course, face-to-face interaction still exists as an important situation of communication, but the most substantial part of communication is mediated. Consequently, a spatial characterization of cultures and life forms is becoming more and more problematic, if not even highly irritating. Spatial and temporal dimensions do not determine the content of social actions. These dimensions are merely the formal aspects of human activities. They are the basis for standardized metrification and calculation of material facts and the succession of events. Both standardized metrification and calculation form, together with the recognition of the difference between concept and object, the nucleus of the rational constitution of late-modern worlds and the end of mystical interpretations of nature.
From ‘Space’ to ‘Action’ ‘Space’, just as all other terms, has undergone a manifold reinterpretation in the course of time. Without entering into a discussion of the history of spatial understandings in philosophical and natural scientific terms, it can be claimed that they too have changed from a rather reificatory-objectivist (Aristotle, Newton) to formalisticsubjectivist (Leibniz, Kant, Husserl) understandings. This change, however, has not been recognized sufficiently by the social sciences. Although it would be logical to eliminate the objectified choric spatial concept from theories of modern society, it would be equally fatal to completely eliminate ‘space’ from social theory for it is apparent that numerous aspects of social realities have spatial connotations. With their ambition to take the spatial dimension of human lives seriously, structuration theory as well as time geography were referring at least implicitly to the reificatory-objectivist conception of space by Newton. This has a number of problematic impacts. The basic shortcomings of Giddens’ structuration theory is based on the assumption, that ‘space’ is – in Table 3
contradiction to ‘society’ – not a theoretical concept but a pregiven fact, free of any need for theoretical considerations. This is expressed in Giddens concept of ‘locale’ and ‘region’ and is basically the result of his reference to Ha¨gerstrand’s time geography and its Newtonian conception of Earth-space, standing in total contradiction of structuration postulation of agent’s capability of agency. In order to do away with this ‘blind spot’ and the lack of care in the integration of spatial categories into social theory, one must first assure that the concepts of space are compatible with the categories of social scientific analysis. For the purposes of arriving at a starting point for research in theories of social praxis, in general, and the structurationist geography, in particular, this necessitates the provision of a concept of space which is compatible with action. What, then, can be understood under the term ‘space’ within the framework of praxisoriented research? To avoid the problematic implication by using ‘space’ for the construction of somehow pregiven ‘region’ or ‘locale’, it is necessary to redefine it. There are some good reasons to understand ‘space’ as nothing more than a concept. If so, however, it is admittedly a very unique one. If one were to take the arguments, which have been brought together in the philosophy of the last few centuries seriously, then ‘space’ would consequently appear to be neither an empirical concept nor simply an a priori one, but rather a formal-classificatory. It cannot be an empirical concept, because ‘space’ is not an object. It is formal, because it does not refer to any specific, topical aspects of material objects. It is classificatory, because it enables us to describe a certain order of material objects in respect of their specific dimension. ‘Space’ is not simply an a priori concept, because it is actually based on experience. It is not based on the experience of a specific, mysterious object known as ‘space’, but rather on the experience of one’s own corporeality, its relation to other realities (including the corporeality of other subjects), and its significance in enabling and restricting actions. The claim that different theoretical approaches to action correspond to different approaches to everyday reality implies, that we can distinguish three main types of interpretations in formal and in classificatory respects (Table 3) a rational, a normative, and a communicative interpretation. Accepting this, the next step can be postulated: The different constitutions of ‘space’ are
Action and space
Action
Formal
Classification
Examples
Rational Normative Communicative
Geo-metric, absolute Geo-metric, Body centered Body centered
Calculation Normative prescription Relational signification
Land market; location theory Nation-state; back-/front-region Regional/national identity; regional symbol
From Werlen, B. (2000). Sozialgeographie. Eine Einfu¨hrung, p 329. Bern: Haupt Verlag.
Structurationist Geography
expressions of different interpretations of its formal and classificatory dimensions. Therefore it may be assumed that, depending on the type of action, both the formal and the classificatory aspect of the concept of space can have a correspondingly unique connotation. This means that it is to be expected that, depending on one’s motivations, both the orientation and the classificatory order can vary greatly. We must now apply both the distinction between different types of action or agency and the consideration of the relative level of significance of spatial dimensions in each respective field of practice to the examination of everyday ‘geography-making’ under various socio-ontological and sociohistorical conditions.
Regionalization as World Binding Paasi has demonstrated how political regions are to be conceptualized from a structuration theoretical perspective: not as container-like entities of concentrated power as postulated in traditional political geography but as institutional realities. The institutionalization of a region is to be understood as a process over which spatial– temporal dimensions of acting and thinking are established and qua individual and institutional practices constantly culturally, legally, educationally, economically, politically, etc. reproduced. Thus, ‘region’ becomes conceivable and researchable as an aspect of social action, as an institution, that is, as a part of social reality that is produced and reproduced through regular action, as a facet of the constitution of societal reality. Instead of socially explaining the spatial as the ‘new’ regional geography does, Paasi wants to elucidate the meaning of socially appropriated space for the constitution of societal realities. Processes of regionalization or transformation processes of regions can occur at the same time in different spatial and temporal dimensions. The territorial shape of an administrative region is the result of localized political–administrative practices. It is through these practices that a region is demarcated. That is to say, the border is defined by institutional arrangements. Thus, the emergence of (administrative) institutions regulates the reproduction of the societal reality ‘region’ qua regulated interrelations of action. With this approach, structuration theory is successfully employed for analyzing processes of territorialization, but not yet for other aspects of social reality under globalized conditions. For outlining the different dimensions of globalization, the implications for regionalization processes should be noted first. In geography, regionalization has traditionally been understood as a scientific practice of spatial classification. On the level of everyday actions, ‘regionalization’ usually refers to a process of political
57
appropriation or demarcation. Both understandings, scientific and everyday, are centered around the spatial demarcation of a ‘region’. The borders of political regions normally consist of physical or symbolic markers. But ‘physical markers’ are, in a social sense, nothing more than representations of the symbolic demarcation of the reach of normative standards. Accordingly, they can never be social forces, only the normative standards they are. Spatial aspects can consequently never be the causes of or reasons for human actions. They are only socially relevant to the extent that they are utilized in actions: as a means of either social categorization or symbolic representation. All sociocultural aspects of action that are not bound to territory by means of institutions or organizations may nevertheless not be presented as regional realities in a geographical sense. Their significance for local experience may best be revealed and clarified by analyzing the forms of action. If we accept this claim then it is also true that, under globalized living conditions, a new understanding of ‘regionalization’ becomes necessary. In terrestrial terms, regionalization on the everyday level is the expression of a (usually political) production of the ordering system of competences. However, this process is also tied to more comprehensive ordering systems of meaning. The political territorial order in the form of nation-states, countries, districts, etc. is a symbolizing expression of the regulation of competences. The symbolic ordering systems of meaning are connected to specific territorial areas. If one were to generalize this principle, every form of regionalization could then be understood as a sort of ‘world binding.’ It takes the basic principle of the modern worldview into consideration, which assigns the central roles to the perceiving and acting subjects. ‘Regionalization’ as a practice of ‘world binding’ also means a practice of ‘reembedding’ by which the subjects, under globalized conditions, define the connection between themselves and the world. ‘World binding’ in this sense represents the following: the social control of spatial and temporal horizons in order to control one’s own actions and the practices of others. This implies practices of allocative appropriation of material goods; practices of authoritative ‘appropriation,’ or control of subjects over a distance; and the symbolic appropriation of objects and subjects on the basis of the available inventory of knowledge. It is not the ‘formation of space’, but rather the various forms (calculative/economic, normative/social, and symbolic/cultural) of appropriating the world of corporeal realities, that is, terrestrially classified objects and bodies that are of central interest. Therefore, the specificity of geography-making as globalization process may be defined as follows: a process of appropriation over distance or in absence, which may
58
Structurationist Geography
proceed differently for differing life forms and in differing life-worlds.
Summary In this way, an action-centered understanding of geographical realties aims to reconstruct everyday regionalization of the life-world. It critically examines the taken-for-granted geographical representations of the world, which are so often mobilized, region-centered representations of the world, and politically mobilized by regionalist and nationalist discourses with a strong tendency to strengthen fundamentalist attitudes. At the same time, it should become obvious that the analysis of regionalization processes should not be limited to the reconstruction of actually existing political regions, as this is the case for the new regional geography. The utilization of structuration theory for geographical investigation of sociocultural universes has rather to focus on processes of regionalizing the world through actions as forms of world binding and the significance of spatial relations for the production and reproduction of sociocultural realities. In this sense, geographical representations of latemodern spatial relations has to focus on the agencies of world binding and to give insights into the ways agents ‘live the world’ and not how they live ‘in’ regions and (living) spaces. This can be considered as one of the challenging duties of structurationist geography and contemporary human geography in general. See also: Cultural Geography; Habitus; New Regionalism; Regional Geography I; Regionalisations, Everyday; Situated Knowledge, Reflexivity; Social Geography; Society-Space; Structuralism/Structuralist Geography; Structuration Theory; Subjectivity.
Further Reading Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan Press. Giddens, A. (1981). A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Vol. 1: Power, Property and the State. London: Macmillan Press. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity press. Gregory, D. (1978). Ideology, Science and Human Geography. London: Harper Collins. Gregory, D. (1981). Human agency and human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS 6, 1--18. Gregory, D. (1982). Regional Transformation and Industrial Revolution: A Geography of Yorkshire Woollen Industry. London: Macmillan Press.
Gregory, D. (1984). Space, time and politics in social theory. An interview with Anthony Giddens. Environment and Planning D. Society and Space 2(2), 123--132. Gregory, D. (1989). Presences and absences: Time-space relations and structuration theory. In Held, D. & Thompson, J. (eds.) Social Theory of Modern Societies. Anthony Giddens and His Critics, pp 185–214. Cambridge: University Press. Gregory, D. and Urry, J. (eds.) (1985). Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London: Macmillan Press. Paasi, A. (1986). The institutionalisation of regions: Framework for understanding the emergence of regions and the constitution of regional identity. Fennia 164(2), 105--146. Paasi, A. (1991). Deconstructing regions: Notes on the scales of spatial life. Society and Space 23, 239--256. Paasi, A. (1992). The construction of socio-spatial consciousness. Geographical perspectives on the history and contexts of Finnish nationalism. Nordisk Samha¨llsgeografisk Tidskrift 15, 79--100. Paasi, A. (1996). Inclusion, exclusion and territorial identities – the meaning of boundaries in the globalizing geopolitical landscape. Nordisk Samha¨llsgeografisk Tidskrift 23, 3--18. Paasi, A. (2002). Bounded spaces in the mobile world: Deconstructing regional identity. Tijdskrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93(2), 137--148. Pred, A. (1981). Social reproduction and the time-geography of everyday life. Geografiska Annaler 63B, 5--22. Pred, A. (1984). Place as historically contingent process. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 74(3), 279--297. Pred, A. (1984). Structuration, biography formation and knowledge: Observations on port growth during the late mercantile period. Environment and Planning D. Society and Space 2(3), 252--276. Pred, A. (1985). The social becomes the spatial, the spatial becomes the social: Enclosures, social change and the becoming of places in the Swedish province of Ska˚ne. In Gregory, D. & Urry, J. (eds.) Social Relations and Spatial Structures, pp 337–365. London: Macmillan Press. Pred, A. (1986). Place, Practice and Structure. Cambridge: Polity Press. Thrift, N. (1983). On the determination of social action in space and time. Environment and Planning D. Society and Space 1, 23--56. Thrift, N. (1985). Bear and mouse or bear and tree? Anthony Giddens’ reconstruction of social theory. Sociology 19(4), 609--623. Thrift, N. (1985). Flies and germs: A geography of knowledge. In Gregory, D. & Urry, J. (eds.) Social Relations and Spatial Structures, pp 366–403. London: Macmillan press. Werlen, B. (1987). Gesellschaft, Handlung und Raum. Grundlagen handlungstheoretischer Sozialgeographie. Erdkundliches Wissen, Heft 89. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Werlen, B. (1993). Society, Action and Space. An Alternative Human Geography. London: Routledge. Werlen, B. (1995). Sozialgeographie Allta¨glicher Regionalisierungen. Band 1: Zur Ontologie von Gesellschaft und Raum. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Werlen, B. (1997). Sozialgeographie allta¨glicher Regionalisierungen. Band 2: Globalisierung, Region und Regionalisierung. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Werlen, B. (2000). Sozialgeographie. Eine Einfu¨hrung. Bern: Haupt Verlag. Werlen, B. (2007). Sozialgeographie allta¨glicher Regionalisierungen. Bd. 3: Ausgangspunkte und Befunde empirischer Forschung. Erdkundliches Wissen, Heft 121. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Relevant Websites http://www.cultural-geography.net Cultural Geography. http://www.social-geography.net Social Geography.
Glossary Geography-Making The core concept of praxiscentered research addresses all forms of constitutional processes of geographical realities and related geographical imaginations of the world. It encompasses the analysis of all kinds of singnificative/symbolic, normative, and rationale appropriations of spatial facts as well as the transformation of nature and the productions of spatial patterns of material artifacts (infrastructures, settlements, urban networks, etc.) on the basis of this different forms of appropriation and power relations in form of rules (schemes of meaning attribution and interpretation) and (allocative and autoritative) resources. Locale/Setting It denotes a spatial context of action as a setting for action constituted by material elements as well as by sets of social norms and culturally shared values, to be understood as a material, socio-economic and socio-cultural constellation of action with intersubjective shared meaning contents. Therefore, it is an action-related concept that cannot be turned into an objective fact or a generalized as a social category, having the same meaning for members of a society (in a certain region). Place It denotes a position in a spatial continuum with a certain specific meaning, expression of processes of appropriation. These processes can, for instance, be based on economic actions, including value attribution in the sense of the ‘central place theory’, on normative actions related to territorial regulations or to symbolicemotive appropriations, expressed by feelings of belonging. Regionalization It is traditionally understood as an academic practice of spatial delimitation of natural, social, economical, cultural, or political spheres of reality. According to the perspective of structurationist human/social geography, it is understood as an everyday practice, not for delimitating the ’world’ spatially, but rather using spatial references for the economical, political, cultural etc. structuring of social realities. Therefore, the key issue is world-binding for the performance of human or more precisely: social agency as forms of appropriations on the basis of spatial concepts. Spatial Disembedding The ontological pre-condition of globalization, based on agency or action orientations strictly separated from time in the sense that the ‘where’ and ‘when’ of acting is open to negotiations and not anymore tied to each other by tradition. The interrelated
50
‘lifting out’ of late-modern institutions and of social relations in general from local contexts and their reformation across indefinite spans of time-space is called time-space distanciation. As major disembedding mechanisms are regarded symbolic tokens (like writing, money, credit cards, etc.) and expert systems (infrastructure of transportation, electronic communication etc.), enabling actions over distance in real time, provoking as well an enormous acceleration of speed of life and social transformation as a crisis of the nation-state. Spatial Embedding The ontological condition primarily of traditional societies and cultures, based on the unity of space and time, enclosing a local and regional anchoring of social institutions and religious practices, very often linked to powerful processes of reification mythification. One of the major characteristics lies in the dominance of face-to-face communication, and the nearly complete absence of space-time distanciation. These two characteristics encompasses a rather narrow spatial clustering of traditional societies and cultures, expressed by quite clear spatial borders of local and regional traditions and cultures, study object of traditional regional geography. Under conditions of globalization ‘spatial embedding’ is the product of reembedding activities of in principal dis-embedded social and cultural relations. World Binding Key concept of action/agencycentered human/social geography, based on the shift from a space-centered geographical imagination to the analysis of the everyday geography-making. It expresses the basic assumption, that the postulation of the study of societies and cultures in space or the study of space includes to a certain extend the acceptance of a (pre-modern) concept of an absolute and material (container) space. An action/agency-centered perspective develops a worldview in which the embodied subjects form the nucleus of geographic research, analyzing how they bring the ‘world’ to themselves under spatially dis-embedded conditions (space-time distanciation/globalization), on the basis of everyday regionalizations, specific forms of appropriations and specific power relations. Zoning It denotes further differentiation of regions for specific activities in spatial as well as temporal respect. Spatial specifications of the region ‘house’, for instance, include the distinction of ‘living room’ (meeting other persons), ‘kitchen’ (cooking, eating), the temporal distinction, for instance, the separation of daytime (living
Structurationist Geography room and kitchen in the basement) and nighttime (sleeping rooms on the first floor). Zoning involves activity-related differentiations at all possible scales, from one single room to global scope and time unites, from seconds to day, seasons, years, etc.
Structuration Theory and the Spatial Contexts of Social Agency In his theory of structuration, Giddens develops a specific vocabulary to overcome one of the most problematic shortcomings of the classic social theories of Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and others, thereby integrating space and spatiality into the theory of social practice. The three spatial key concepts are: ‘locale/setting’, ‘region’, and ‘zone’. The first term is ‘locale’. Giddens explicitly differentiates between this and the geographical concept of ‘place’, in order to show that the contextuality of actions, not the physical realm, is central. ‘Locale’ refers to a piece of space used for a specific activity that is already organized by pregiven material interactions. In short, we can understand ‘locale’ as a material context, or the constellations of actions which acquires a specific social meaning intersubjectively as well. Giddens occasionally uses the term ‘setting’ as in ‘setting for interaction’ for this. But setting is by far, not just a spatial parameter or a physical containment of social interaction. ‘Setting’ has rather to be understood as an element that is mobilized as an inherent part of interaction. An example is a house. A locale can only be called a ‘house’ if we observe that this material context has the furnishings for living in and is treated in that way. According to the context of action, a locale can be a house, a street corner, a city, or the territory of a state. Consequentially, the determination that a constellation is a ‘locale/setting’ does not depend on the size or spatial dimensions, but rather from the way in which actions are carried out. Every locale is ‘regionalized’ in space and time. A house, for example, has floors, hallways, and rooms. Regionalization thus means a first specification of the ‘social definition’ of certain spatial slices or locales ‘in relation to certain ways of acting’. This does not foreground the physical, worldly expression or the material characteristics of a region in the (traditional) geographic sense. It is, again, a combination of the social and spatial categories or characteristics. Seen in this light, a region should be understood within a ‘locale/setting’ as a social part of the situation or the context of action delimited by symbolic marking which can be ascertained by physical and material relations (walls, lines, rivers, valley, etc.). A region within a locale refers ‘to aspects of the settings which are
51
normatively implicated in systems of interaction, such that they are in some way ‘set apart’, for certain types of activities.’ ‘Regionalization’ can be further differentiated according to type, length of time, and character. Determining the ‘form’ of the regionalization refers to the type of borders that define the region and can be determined by physical or symbolic markers. Seen physically, this can mean the walls between individual rooms or mountain chains between larger pieces of space. Seen socially, these translate into understandings that one does not sleep in the kitchen, or that the borderlines of regional differentiation represent significant social characteristics of spatially positioned persons of a population, such as between the ‘North’ and the ‘South’ of England. This means that regions can differ in their spatial and temporal extents. Consequently, the intersection of ‘spans’ of space and time may be variable. But the social maintenance of regions of a bigger span (like nation-states, international markets, etc.) necessarily depends – and that is a consequence of the social nature of regions and borders as elements of social action – in general upon a high degree of institutionalization. Only on that basis, a stabilization in the form of social reproduction is possible. By the ‘character’ of regionalization, Giddens refers to ‘the modes’ in which the time–space organization of locales is structured within an embracing social system. ‘Modes’ can be understood as the overarching spatial organizing principle, which governs a certain encompassing social system. As an example, preindustrial economic systems rarely led to sharp divisions between familial and work life. Already in industrial societies, there is however a clear differentiation between living space and workspaces. The corresponding organizing principle here can be characterized as a ‘functional division’ between and within production and reproduction zones. ‘Zoning’ refers to the further differentiation of regions. This means that, for example, specific rooms are only defined for specific activities: the living room is for meeting and receiving guests, the kitchen is for cooking and perhaps also for eating, and so on. Within production facilities, this could be zone of production, administration, and rest. Regionalization and zoning are mostly combined with time, such that time–space regionalization and zoning result, which can be seen in an English house, is as follows: the upstairs includes the rooms which are used for activities at night, the ground floor for daytime activities. Temporal zoning, however, is also central in a more encompassing manner. The clear division into day and night can be held for the fundamental differentiation of social life into zones of exertion and relaxation in all societies, and the needs of the human organism for regular periods of sleep are governed by it. In this way, ‘nighttime’ forms a very clear ‘border’ for social activities as much as any spatial boundary. In other theaters, zoning occurs according to weekly, monthly, or even yearly rhythms.
52
Structurationist Geography
The Integration of the Theory of Structuration into New Regional Geography The first attempt to integrate the spatially enlarged social theory of structuration into the geographical worldview has been undertaken by Derek Gregory in his project of a critical new regional geography. The main characteristic of that attempt lies rather in the integration of a social theoretical perspective into regional research than in a critical transposition of a metadisciplinary position into a new disciplinary framework. Unlike traditional geography, Gregory’s regional geography – based initially on Habermas’ writing and later on Giddens’ critical theory – is not founded on physical geographical conditions but on criteria that are derived from social or structuration theory respectively. Starting with the question of how societal realities are regionally formed and articulated, Gregory then wants to pave the way for appropriate regional political or scientific interventions. The major thesis of the project is that spatial structures are somehow incorporated in social structures and vice versa. The empirical regional study ‘Regional transformation and industrial revolution’ is the first to encompass a systematic geographical discussion of Giddens’ structuration theory (see Figure 1). The transformation comprises three steps of decoding: In the ‘first step’, the central stages of transformation and the transformation power of regional realities are identified. The changes in the wool industry are regarded as expressions of structuration processes, that is, as results of transforming social reality by means of rule-governed human action. Being differently equipped with authoritative and allocative resources, actions are seen as the basis for the reproduction of social structures.
Power
Sanction
Interpretative scheme
Facility
Norm
Signification
Domination
Legitimation
System of Communication interaction
Modality
Structure
In the ‘second step’, the transformation of labor into capital and the consequences of this structuration process are empirically analyzed. Changes in the labor process encompass, above all, technical innovations and evolving routinization of work steps, gender-specific division of labor, chronic unemployment, vanishing of the inviolability of landowners, etc. All together, these processes are to be seen as expressions of the oncoming convertibility of private property, which turns labor into a commodity and thus working hours into objects of exchange. To explore these changes in their regional appearance is the second task of the ‘new regional geography’. The ‘third step’ commences with an analysis of the time–spatial consequences of the latter two aspects. Subsequently, it should be reconstructed how time–spatial aspects of action help to ‘prevail’ what has been singled out in the first two steps of decoding, that is, the identification of the transformative power and the regional transformation analysis. Analyzing the changing rhythms of daily and annual activities within the spheres of household and workplace (which are separated under the capitalist regime) is a central aspect of structuration processes and geographical regional research. It is assumed that this casts a light on the regional transformations of societal realities. These three steps together with an analysis of the theoretically inferred link between the three subject areas should allow two things: first, a deeper understanding of uneven regional developments, second, an insight into the ‘mechanisms’ of the spatial differentiation of society, especially the varying regional constitution of class relations. Alan Pred’s reference to Giddens’ structuration theory is embedded in his interest in Ha¨gerstrand’s time geography. Above all, Pred wants to reconstruct the historical becoming of places and regions as expressions of structuration processes. Consequently, a given region has to be
Figure 1 Gregory’s reference to the structuration theory. From Gregory, D. (1982). Regional Transformation and Industrial Revolution: A Geography of Yorkshire Woollen Industry, p 17. London: Macmillan.
Structurationist Geography
Third, it is assumed that there is a meaning of place that – although it does not exist as an independent entity – is part of the growing consciousness of an individual: according to Pred, the meaning of place is to be treated as an object of regional research just as the constitution of biographies and the consequences of regional institutions are. At this point, it becomes even more obvious than in the two preceding points that what is analyzed as regionally constituted cannot be the object of regional research per se. If the meaning of place is said to be a mental issue, it can just not be material at the same time and therefore not be located topographically. It is a mental or social entity that can be extremely relevant for regional processes without having a regional existence. Consequently, it can be addressed as a crucial element for the process of regionalization, but not as a regional object. This shows that the application of structuration theory and social theory in general to social geography cannot lead to regional geography, but rather to the investigation or processes of regionalization, what in fact is the original intention of Pred, but is not what he suggested. In the early 1980s, Nigel Thrift successfully incorporated structuration theory into an outline of contextual regional research. The key concepts of this reorientation of regional research are ‘locale’ and ‘social action’. With reference to Giddens, locale designates a certain portion of physical space that already displays a specific pattern of material objects and persons. That is, to say, locale is the material context, the given constellation for action and interaction. This constellation is also labeled ‘setting’. In order to scientifically demarcate a region as a spatial interaction structure, an in-depth understanding of interaction is necessary. Interaction is interpreted as an activity linking social and spatial structure by means of institutional interrelations. Consequently, a ‘region’ cannot be regarded as a pre-given
understood and analyzed as the result of transformation processes. The objective is to examine regions within the analytical frame of a structurationist ‘theory of place’. In this context, the structurationist comprehension of ‘place’ and ‘region’ becomes important. For Pred, the becoming of ‘place/region’ always implies two social processes: the appropriation of ‘space’ and the transformation of ‘nature’. Every place or region is an expression of these two processes (Figure 2). The historical becoming of a ‘place’ or ‘region’ by means of appropriating ‘space’ and transforming ‘nature’ is, as Pred stresses, inseparably bound to the reproduction and transformation of society in space and time. Accordingly, the process of societal transformation and reproduction is bound to the becoming of ‘place/region’ by means of the appropriation of ‘space’ and the transformation of ‘nature’. Consequently, the distinctiveness or uniqueness of every place and every region is an expression of the agent’s historically variable interpretation of these processes under historically specific, contingent conditions. The ‘theory of place’ comprises three main points: first, the ‘institutional projects’. Their shaping has an influence on daily routines and paths of the participants of these institutions. This shaping of routines and paths has strong implications for the place; additionally, they leave traces in the landscape and they influence power relations. As a consequence, social structures in Giddens’ sense become particularly important. Second, Pred suggests examining the formation of biographies as an expression of structuration processes ‘within’ a place; that is, to say, the influence of the place/region on a person’s life. Thus, place/region is regarded to play a key role in the formation of biographies. Regional studies should disclose this constitutive power.
Become one another
Become one another
Intersection of individual paths and institutional projects (practice)
Establishment, reproduction, and transformation of power relations (structure)
53
Genres de vie and social reproduction Spatial and social division of labor (production and distribution) Sedimentation of other cultural and social forms Biography formation and socialization Language acquisition Personality development Development of conciousness
Transformation of nature
Occur simultaneously
Figure 2 Components of ‘place’ and ‘region’. From Pred, A. (1986). Place, Practice and Structure, p 11. Cambridge: Polity Press.
54
Structurationist Geography
place or corporeal entity. Instead, demarcating a region should be the objective of scientific research. It is to find out which ‘settings’ of interactions are to be joined in order to form what then can justifiably be called a ‘region’. Every region is, above all, to be understood as enabling and restricting actions. Both options decisively influence the life paths of the individuals living there. Consequently, the structure of the arrangement pattern of ‘locales’ is regarded as an expression of the social structure. In this regard, the varying importance of different settings is crucial. The organization of production determines which settings become dominant. They are characterized by the fact that time ‘must’ be allocated to them.
Discussion The aim, however, is to outline a conception of geographical research that, on the one hand, is not only social-theoretically informed but in a consistent way compatible with the basic principles of social research and, on the other hand, aims at a more thorough incorporation of spatial and temporal contexts of social action. This aim is not fully achieved by first attempts to integrate structuration theory in geographical world perspective. The main problems are insufficient theoretical reflections of the geographical concept of Earth-space and a misapprehension of modern and latemodern social, ontological conditions. These, however, have to be taken into account, if human and social geography wants to adequately represent late-modern geographical conditions and consequently be relevant for everyday life. Before the problematic aspects of the adaptation of structuration theory to geography are to be discussed, it should also be mentioned, that some of the identified problems are integral to structuration theory itself. The main problem of this adaptation lies in the fact, that ‘places’ as well as ‘regions’ are considered in the existing shape, or even regarded as historically pregiven and fixed. Human actions are analyzed ‘in’ regions and not as the region-building forces. That is to say, action is not considered as a constitutive power for the social formation of place and region. In the course of establishing a new regional geography, the core principle inspired by structuration theory: ‘people produce history and places’ moves toward a quite different governing principle: ‘people are produced by history and places’ implying that times, spaces, or places can constitute meanings and have a socializing effect. Consequently, Pred suggests that places/regions do exist as such – but only as a constant flow of human practice. The latter, however, would imply that place/region can only be seen
as an element of social praxis/action, but not existing as such in the form of a spatial reality in itself. Giddens proposes that analyzing the processes of regionalization could be the specific, most important, or even legitimizing task of contemporary geography. This notion is reformulated in Gregory’s, Pred’s, and Thrift’s adaptations to a research program of the constitution and transformation processes of historically pregiven political regions. In doing so, they miss recognizing the social meaning of regionalization for the reproduction of social realities. Then the program shows clearly that, still, the explanation of a given geographical phenomenon forms the center of scientific interest. All together, the AngloSaxon reception of structuration theory lacks a comprehensive embeddedness in social theory. Instead, structurationist geography should rather interpret the signification of geography-making as a core dimension of the constitution process of social and cultural realities as well as of the reproduction of power. Moreover, it should reflect social theoretical implications of space conceptions and late-modern living conditions. In this regard, it is not sufficient to apply structuration theory to regional analysis. But also for a productive application to the social-scientific analysis of everyday geography-making, the theory has to be revised radically. Its internal contradictions have to be overcome for appropriate geographical research. Above all, this excludes regarding ‘space’ and ‘time’ as special powers of the constitution of society. Giddens’ problematic incorporation of ‘space’ has to be revised in the sense that, it can be made compatible with the core principles and assumptions of structuration theory. In short, a more radical implementation of the structurationist perspective into human geographical research has, first of all, to clarify the current geographical condition, the current ontology spatial and temporal relations and its relevance for the constitution of sociocultural realities; second, to theorize ‘space’ in the context of social action or agency; third, to put the processes of regionalization in the center of geographical research interest, and finally, to redefine processes of regionalization under globalized conditions of local actions.
Late-Modern Ontology and Structurationist Geography If we start from the premise that all kinds of spatial relations are constituted historically under certain social and cultural conditions, we have, above all, to spell out the basic principles of that interconnection. For this, the construction of ideal types should allow to identify certain characteristic aspects in the interrelation of the sociocultural and spatial. The first question, then, is: what conditions have to be given or have to hold, if the spatial
Structurationist Geography
description of societies and cultures should be possible, as required by geographical methodology? The first hypothetical answer to this question is that traditional life forms come very close. The most important spatiotemporal characteristics of traditional life forms and regional societies can – in ideal typical form – be summarized as shown in Table 1. Stability over time or embeddedness in a temporal respect is based on the domination of local traditions. Traditions connect past and future and are the central frame of reference for action, orientation, and legitimization in daily praxis. They set narrow bounds for individual decisions. Social relations are predominantly ruled by kinship-, tribe-, or rank-relations. Depending on birth, age, or sex, clearly defined social positions are attributed to persons. Narrow spatial limitations, or ‘embeddedness’ in a spatial sense, lie in the technical standards of transportation and communication. The predominance of walking and the limited significance of writing restrict social and cultural expressions to the local and regional level. Faceto-face interaction is almost the only possible situation for communication. Additionally, production processes have to respect natural conditions because of technological development. Economies are, consequently, highly adapted to the prevailing physical conditions. In addition – as many anthropological studies teach us – temporal, spatial, and sociocultural aspects of everyday praxis are closely bound together. For traditional life forms, it is important not only to carry out certain activities at a certain time, but also in a certain place and sometimes even with a certain spatial orientation. In this way, social regulations and activity patterns are reproduced and enforced by unreflexive spatiotemporal commitments. The unity of sociocultural and spatiotemporal dimensions of activities becomes the basis for extremely powerful reification processes. In this way, for example, places of worship are identified with the act of worship. Only in this way is it possible to claim that somebody who puts his or her feet on a certain place also desecrates that place. But this can only appear as a meaningful
Table 1 societies
Ideal type of traditional life forms and regional
55
phrase, if there is no distinction made between significance and place. To put it another way: only when the significance is seen as a quality of the place itself and not as a product of the subjects’ constitution process, only then is it possible to talk about desecrating places. Based on this process of reification, ‘space’ and ‘time’ are loaded, are filled up with specific meanings. Signification appears as a quality of things, deeply rooted in them and embedded in the territory of a given culture. Under such conditions, regional geography consequently appears a meaningful scientific project. Under late-modern conditions, however, the project of traditional as well as ‘new regional geography’ aiming at spatial representations of life conditions and of life forms is confronted with serious limitations. ‘Late-modern life forms’ are the basis and expression of the globalization process. Here, traditions are not at the center of daily social praxis. Social orientations and social actions need – as a consequence of modernity – discursive justification and legitimization. The dominant life contexts are spatially and temporally ‘disembedded’. The disembedding mechanisms are grounded in the history of modernization. These mechanisms are at the core of the transformation of the space–society nexus, leading today to the globalization of our life conditions. Temporal stability is replaced by constant social transformation. Late-modern everyday actions are not dominated by local traditions. It is rather routines that sustain ontological security. For individual decisions, a wide field of possibilities stays open. Globally observable cultures, life styles, and life forms (Table 2) – very often linked to a specific generation – become much more important. A person’s social position is determined by production and valued work and – following the principles of the enlightenment – not by birth or age, nor by sex or race. The spatial clustering and embeddedness of traditional social life forms is replaced by global interconnections and disembedding mechanisms. The actual and potential reach of actors is stretched to a global dimension. The most important disembedding mechanisms
Table 2 societies
Ideal type of late-modern life forms and globalized
Traditions intertwine past, present, and future Kinship organizes and stabilizes social relations over time Birth, age, and sex determine social positions Face-to-face situations dominate communication Small amount of interregional communication The local village constitutes the familiar life context
1. Everyday routines sustain ontological security 2. Globally observable cultures, life forms, and lifestyles 3. Production and valued work determine social positions 4. Abstract systems (money, writing, and expert systems) enable mediated social relations over enormous distances 5. Worldwide communication systems 6. Global village as anonymous context of experience
Traditional life forms are temporally and spatially embedded. From Werlen, B. (1995). Sozialgeographie allta¨glicher Regionalisierungen. Band 1: Zur Ontologie von Gesellschaft und Raum, p 104. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Late-modern life forms are spatially and temporally disembedded. From Werlen, B. (1995). Sozialgeographie allta¨glicher Regionalisierungen. Band 1: Zur Ontologie von Gesellschaft und Raum, p 134. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
56
Structurationist Geography
are money, writing, and technical artifacts. Means of transportation enable a high level of mobility. Together with individual freedom of movement, this produces a mixing of formerly locally fixed cultures. This multicultural mixing, combined with global communication systems, enables a diffusion of information and information storing that is not dependent on the corporeal presence of the actors. Of course, face-to-face interaction still exists as an important situation of communication, but the most substantial part of communication is mediated. Consequently, a spatial characterization of cultures and life forms is becoming more and more problematic, if not even highly irritating. Spatial and temporal dimensions do not determine the content of social actions. These dimensions are merely the formal aspects of human activities. They are the basis for standardized metrification and calculation of material facts and the succession of events. Both standardized metrification and calculation form, together with the recognition of the difference between concept and object, the nucleus of the rational constitution of late-modern worlds and the end of mystical interpretations of nature.
From ‘Space’ to ‘Action’ ‘Space’, just as all other terms, has undergone a manifold reinterpretation in the course of time. Without entering into a discussion of the history of spatial understandings in philosophical and natural scientific terms, it can be claimed that they too have changed from a rather reificatory-objectivist (Aristotle, Newton) to formalisticsubjectivist (Leibniz, Kant, Husserl) understandings. This change, however, has not been recognized sufficiently by the social sciences. Although it would be logical to eliminate the objectified choric spatial concept from theories of modern society, it would be equally fatal to completely eliminate ‘space’ from social theory for it is apparent that numerous aspects of social realities have spatial connotations. With their ambition to take the spatial dimension of human lives seriously, structuration theory as well as time geography were referring at least implicitly to the reificatory-objectivist conception of space by Newton. This has a number of problematic impacts. The basic shortcomings of Giddens’ structuration theory is based on the assumption, that ‘space’ is – in Table 3
contradiction to ‘society’ – not a theoretical concept but a pregiven fact, free of any need for theoretical considerations. This is expressed in Giddens concept of ‘locale’ and ‘region’ and is basically the result of his reference to Ha¨gerstrand’s time geography and its Newtonian conception of Earth-space, standing in total contradiction of structuration postulation of agent’s capability of agency. In order to do away with this ‘blind spot’ and the lack of care in the integration of spatial categories into social theory, one must first assure that the concepts of space are compatible with the categories of social scientific analysis. For the purposes of arriving at a starting point for research in theories of social praxis, in general, and the structurationist geography, in particular, this necessitates the provision of a concept of space which is compatible with action. What, then, can be understood under the term ‘space’ within the framework of praxisoriented research? To avoid the problematic implication by using ‘space’ for the construction of somehow pregiven ‘region’ or ‘locale’, it is necessary to redefine it. There are some good reasons to understand ‘space’ as nothing more than a concept. If so, however, it is admittedly a very unique one. If one were to take the arguments, which have been brought together in the philosophy of the last few centuries seriously, then ‘space’ would consequently appear to be neither an empirical concept nor simply an a priori one, but rather a formal-classificatory. It cannot be an empirical concept, because ‘space’ is not an object. It is formal, because it does not refer to any specific, topical aspects of material objects. It is classificatory, because it enables us to describe a certain order of material objects in respect of their specific dimension. ‘Space’ is not simply an a priori concept, because it is actually based on experience. It is not based on the experience of a specific, mysterious object known as ‘space’, but rather on the experience of one’s own corporeality, its relation to other realities (including the corporeality of other subjects), and its significance in enabling and restricting actions. The claim that different theoretical approaches to action correspond to different approaches to everyday reality implies, that we can distinguish three main types of interpretations in formal and in classificatory respects (Table 3) a rational, a normative, and a communicative interpretation. Accepting this, the next step can be postulated: The different constitutions of ‘space’ are
Action and space
Action
Formal
Classification
Examples
Rational Normative Communicative
Geo-metric, absolute Geo-metric, Body centered Body centered
Calculation Normative prescription Relational signification
Land market; location theory Nation-state; back-/front-region Regional/national identity; regional symbol
From Werlen, B. (2000). Sozialgeographie. Eine Einfu¨hrung, p 329. Bern: Haupt Verlag.
Structurationist Geography
expressions of different interpretations of its formal and classificatory dimensions. Therefore it may be assumed that, depending on the type of action, both the formal and the classificatory aspect of the concept of space can have a correspondingly unique connotation. This means that it is to be expected that, depending on one’s motivations, both the orientation and the classificatory order can vary greatly. We must now apply both the distinction between different types of action or agency and the consideration of the relative level of significance of spatial dimensions in each respective field of practice to the examination of everyday ‘geography-making’ under various socio-ontological and sociohistorical conditions.
Regionalization as World Binding Paasi has demonstrated how political regions are to be conceptualized from a structuration theoretical perspective: not as container-like entities of concentrated power as postulated in traditional political geography but as institutional realities. The institutionalization of a region is to be understood as a process over which spatial– temporal dimensions of acting and thinking are established and qua individual and institutional practices constantly culturally, legally, educationally, economically, politically, etc. reproduced. Thus, ‘region’ becomes conceivable and researchable as an aspect of social action, as an institution, that is, as a part of social reality that is produced and reproduced through regular action, as a facet of the constitution of societal reality. Instead of socially explaining the spatial as the ‘new’ regional geography does, Paasi wants to elucidate the meaning of socially appropriated space for the constitution of societal realities. Processes of regionalization or transformation processes of regions can occur at the same time in different spatial and temporal dimensions. The territorial shape of an administrative region is the result of localized political–administrative practices. It is through these practices that a region is demarcated. That is to say, the border is defined by institutional arrangements. Thus, the emergence of (administrative) institutions regulates the reproduction of the societal reality ‘region’ qua regulated interrelations of action. With this approach, structuration theory is successfully employed for analyzing processes of territorialization, but not yet for other aspects of social reality under globalized conditions. For outlining the different dimensions of globalization, the implications for regionalization processes should be noted first. In geography, regionalization has traditionally been understood as a scientific practice of spatial classification. On the level of everyday actions, ‘regionalization’ usually refers to a process of political
57
appropriation or demarcation. Both understandings, scientific and everyday, are centered around the spatial demarcation of a ‘region’. The borders of political regions normally consist of physical or symbolic markers. But ‘physical markers’ are, in a social sense, nothing more than representations of the symbolic demarcation of the reach of normative standards. Accordingly, they can never be social forces, only the normative standards they are. Spatial aspects can consequently never be the causes of or reasons for human actions. They are only socially relevant to the extent that they are utilized in actions: as a means of either social categorization or symbolic representation. All sociocultural aspects of action that are not bound to territory by means of institutions or organizations may nevertheless not be presented as regional realities in a geographical sense. Their significance for local experience may best be revealed and clarified by analyzing the forms of action. If we accept this claim then it is also true that, under globalized living conditions, a new understanding of ‘regionalization’ becomes necessary. In terrestrial terms, regionalization on the everyday level is the expression of a (usually political) production of the ordering system of competences. However, this process is also tied to more comprehensive ordering systems of meaning. The political territorial order in the form of nation-states, countries, districts, etc. is a symbolizing expression of the regulation of competences. The symbolic ordering systems of meaning are connected to specific territorial areas. If one were to generalize this principle, every form of regionalization could then be understood as a sort of ‘world binding.’ It takes the basic principle of the modern worldview into consideration, which assigns the central roles to the perceiving and acting subjects. ‘Regionalization’ as a practice of ‘world binding’ also means a practice of ‘reembedding’ by which the subjects, under globalized conditions, define the connection between themselves and the world. ‘World binding’ in this sense represents the following: the social control of spatial and temporal horizons in order to control one’s own actions and the practices of others. This implies practices of allocative appropriation of material goods; practices of authoritative ‘appropriation,’ or control of subjects over a distance; and the symbolic appropriation of objects and subjects on the basis of the available inventory of knowledge. It is not the ‘formation of space’, but rather the various forms (calculative/economic, normative/social, and symbolic/cultural) of appropriating the world of corporeal realities, that is, terrestrially classified objects and bodies that are of central interest. Therefore, the specificity of geography-making as globalization process may be defined as follows: a process of appropriation over distance or in absence, which may
58
Structurationist Geography
proceed differently for differing life forms and in differing life-worlds.
Summary In this way, an action-centered understanding of geographical realties aims to reconstruct everyday regionalization of the life-world. It critically examines the taken-for-granted geographical representations of the world, which are so often mobilized, region-centered representations of the world, and politically mobilized by regionalist and nationalist discourses with a strong tendency to strengthen fundamentalist attitudes. At the same time, it should become obvious that the analysis of regionalization processes should not be limited to the reconstruction of actually existing political regions, as this is the case for the new regional geography. The utilization of structuration theory for geographical investigation of sociocultural universes has rather to focus on processes of regionalizing the world through actions as forms of world binding and the significance of spatial relations for the production and reproduction of sociocultural realities. In this sense, geographical representations of latemodern spatial relations has to focus on the agencies of world binding and to give insights into the ways agents ‘live the world’ and not how they live ‘in’ regions and (living) spaces. This can be considered as one of the challenging duties of structurationist geography and contemporary human geography in general. See also: Cultural Geography; Habitus; New Regionalism; Regional Geography I; Regionalisations, Everyday; Situated Knowledge, Reflexivity; Social Geography; Society-Space; Structuralism/Structuralist Geography; Structuration Theory; Subjectivity.
Further Reading Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan Press. Giddens, A. (1981). A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Vol. 1: Power, Property and the State. London: Macmillan Press. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity press. Gregory, D. (1978). Ideology, Science and Human Geography. London: Harper Collins. Gregory, D. (1981). Human agency and human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NS 6, 1--18. Gregory, D. (1982). Regional Transformation and Industrial Revolution: A Geography of Yorkshire Woollen Industry. London: Macmillan Press.
Gregory, D. (1984). Space, time and politics in social theory. An interview with Anthony Giddens. Environment and Planning D. Society and Space 2(2), 123--132. Gregory, D. (1989). Presences and absences: Time-space relations and structuration theory. In Held, D. & Thompson, J. (eds.) Social Theory of Modern Societies. Anthony Giddens and His Critics, pp 185–214. Cambridge: University Press. Gregory, D. and Urry, J. (eds.) (1985). Social Relations and Spatial Structures. London: Macmillan Press. Paasi, A. (1986). The institutionalisation of regions: Framework for understanding the emergence of regions and the constitution of regional identity. Fennia 164(2), 105--146. Paasi, A. (1991). Deconstructing regions: Notes on the scales of spatial life. Society and Space 23, 239--256. Paasi, A. (1992). The construction of socio-spatial consciousness. Geographical perspectives on the history and contexts of Finnish nationalism. Nordisk Samha¨llsgeografisk Tidskrift 15, 79--100. Paasi, A. (1996). Inclusion, exclusion and territorial identities – the meaning of boundaries in the globalizing geopolitical landscape. Nordisk Samha¨llsgeografisk Tidskrift 23, 3--18. Paasi, A. (2002). Bounded spaces in the mobile world: Deconstructing regional identity. Tijdskrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93(2), 137--148. Pred, A. (1981). Social reproduction and the time-geography of everyday life. Geografiska Annaler 63B, 5--22. Pred, A. (1984). Place as historically contingent process. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 74(3), 279--297. Pred, A. (1984). Structuration, biography formation and knowledge: Observations on port growth during the late mercantile period. Environment and Planning D. Society and Space 2(3), 252--276. Pred, A. (1985). The social becomes the spatial, the spatial becomes the social: Enclosures, social change and the becoming of places in the Swedish province of Ska˚ne. In Gregory, D. & Urry, J. (eds.) Social Relations and Spatial Structures, pp 337–365. London: Macmillan Press. Pred, A. (1986). Place, Practice and Structure. Cambridge: Polity Press. Thrift, N. (1983). On the determination of social action in space and time. Environment and Planning D. Society and Space 1, 23--56. Thrift, N. (1985). Bear and mouse or bear and tree? Anthony Giddens’ reconstruction of social theory. Sociology 19(4), 609--623. Thrift, N. (1985). Flies and germs: A geography of knowledge. In Gregory, D. & Urry, J. (eds.) Social Relations and Spatial Structures, pp 366–403. London: Macmillan press. Werlen, B. (1987). Gesellschaft, Handlung und Raum. Grundlagen handlungstheoretischer Sozialgeographie. Erdkundliches Wissen, Heft 89. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Werlen, B. (1993). Society, Action and Space. An Alternative Human Geography. London: Routledge. Werlen, B. (1995). Sozialgeographie Allta¨glicher Regionalisierungen. Band 1: Zur Ontologie von Gesellschaft und Raum. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Werlen, B. (1997). Sozialgeographie allta¨glicher Regionalisierungen. Band 2: Globalisierung, Region und Regionalisierung. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Werlen, B. (2000). Sozialgeographie. Eine Einfu¨hrung. Bern: Haupt Verlag. Werlen, B. (2007). Sozialgeographie allta¨glicher Regionalisierungen. Bd. 3: Ausgangspunkte und Befunde empirischer Forschung. Erdkundliches Wissen, Heft 121. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Relevant Websites http://www.cultural-geography.net Cultural Geography. http://www.social-geography.net Social Geography.