Space Place and The Subject
Space Place and The Subject
Space Place and The Subject
PAOLO FURIA
Abstract
This paper aims to show the connection between space, place and subjectivity.
According to how we conceive space, place and their relations, it is possible to
affirm a certain understanding of what has been called “the subject” in the
framework of Cartesian, Kantian and Husserlian legacies. Quantitative geog-
raphy takes the transcendental subject—characterized by a methodical de-
tachment from its environment, constituted as an opposite object—for granted.
Many and various reactions to this subject-object model can be traced within
the social sciences (and within human geography in particular) in the last four
decades. In this paper I propose an overview of these reactions and then provide
a new conceptual articulation for them, based on the kind of subjectivity they
assume. I have identified three overarching patterns, or meta-theories: one on-
tological, one critical and one phenomenological.
70
Soja, both philosophy and the social sciences have tended to focus on
time at the expense of space and place.3
The debate on the concepts of space and place is of major impor-
tance for the philosophical understanding of subjectivity. It is arguable
that the twentieth-century crisis of the Cartesian cogito and of the uni-
versal dream of the Enlightenment resulted in a new interest for the
situatedness of the human being.4 It is well known that the crisis of
the cogito has been widely discussed both within philosophy and the
human sciences. Existentialism and philosophical hermeneutics, on
the one hand, and structuralism and quantitative studies on the other,
have consolidated the crisis of the subject as it was conceived in the
Cartesian-Kantian tradition. Though different conceptions of what is
“the human” result have resulted from the outbreak of the modern uni-
versal subjectivity, all of them share a distrust towards what Lyotard
has called “the grand narratives” of modernity. A distrust concerning
especially the idea of an indefinite progress led by the ever-increasing
awareness and moral growth of humanity as a whole. The decline of
the idea of unlimited moral progress seems to be more widely shared
than the crisis of instrumental reason, whose shortcomings have been
pointed out only by post-structural or postmodern critics, but which is
playing a preponderant role in our “post-industrial” society. In one way
or another, twentieth-century philosophy and social science had to face
the problem of how time actually works. New concepts, drawn from
the analysis of contemporary changes such as post-history5 or super-
modernity,6 began to emerge, challenging the modern conception of
history as an ordered and oriented progress towards an intelligible end.
In a globalized world, temporality appears, at the same time, highly
accelerated and devoid of any historical, intelligible direction. Globali-
zation has been charged with both the disintegration of local commu-
nities and a guilty dismissal of the sense of memory. With the crisis of
the trust in moral progress, resistance against global homogenization is
mainly undertaken in the name of the locale. It is the very crisis of the
modern conception of a universal subject related to a universal history
that triggers a new concern for the concepts of space and place.
It seems a very important task, then, to make explicit the largely im-
plicit conceptions of place implied in common discourses. There are still
many underlying assumptions, in the current use of the words “place”
Spaces, and with them space as such, always provided for already with-
in the stay of mortals. Spaces open up by the fact that they are let into
the dwelling of man. To say that mortals are is to say that in dwelling
they persist through spaces by virtue of their stay among things and
locations. And only because mortals pervade, persist through, spaces
by their very nature are they able to go through spaces.28
Appaduraiʼs noteworthy interest for the issue of space and place is de-
rived from the blunt fact that “for ethnographers it is difficult to dis-
cuss place or space in a way that does not confine the inhabitants.”50
It appears that ethnography implicitly adopts an ontological notion of
place because of its methodological construction. The very definition
of the field, with its inherent borders, entails a notion of place as “a lo-
cale that imprisons natives.”51 “Place-natives-culture” is the traditional
triptych of idiographic ethnography that post-structuralism intends to
deconstruct.
It is arguable that the status of subjectivity and agency remains
problematic for all critical pattern of space and place. Both structuralist
and poststructuralist theories undertake a relentless deconstruction of
subjectivity and agency. But, whereas the former does so in order to dis-
cover the structural laws lying beneath the surface phenomena, the lat-
ter pursues the goal of revealing the fundamental layer of multiplicity
and hybridation. If structuralism hypothesizes the structural laws lying
beneath the spatial, post-structuralism fights against every attempt at
abstraction: of macroeconomic laws, of place as a stronghold for cul-
tural identity, and also of human agency and free will. The systematic
deconstruction of the illusion of “place-natives-culture” triptych con-
sidered as an organic whole is not pursued for the sake of a return of
the idealistic illusion of individuals (or groups) freely shaping spaces
and symbols. Critical approaches at large emphasize the task of decon-
structing, dis-ordering,52 problematizing, without providing a theory
of the subject and its positive ties with the living places. This negative
There is no question that all the trends mentioned above have inspired
many geographers seeking a new basis for their non-positivist geo-
graphical theories and practices. And it is also true that “humanistic
geography” is an existing label used by important theorists such as
In this possibility for the architect to detach his work from the accepted
and dominant standards, Ricoeur introduces one possible notion of
agency that makes peace with the modern claim for the free subject.
However, the decisive move, in this sense, occurs with refiguration: the
stage in which inhabitants “read” the spaces they live in and judge them
according to their needs and demands. This is the kind of agency a phe-
nomenological approach advocates: not the self-transparent agency of
a rational actor that is called to operate on an irrational background,
but the embodied agency of an experiencing subject. Here, Ricoeurʼs
phenomenological account of agency matches the poststructuralist
claim for multiplicity against overall explanatory theories:
CONCLUSION
My purpose was to discover the relevance of the concepts of space and
place for the philosophical understanding of subjectivity. I can agree
with Jeff Malpasʼs claim that place has a “central significance . . . in any
understanding of human being and experience.”69 Therefore, I feel that
the recent ubiquity of space and place in the social sciences requires
new philosophical assessments of the issue of the subject. Its fate has
been taken for granted within the postmodern turn by a huge number
of authors, trends and schools. In the light of the above overview on
NOTES
1. Good examples of recent works whose purpose is to guide the researcher into the
jungle of contributions and statements on space and place are Phil Hubbard and
Rob Kitchin, Key Thinkers on Space and Place, 2nd ed. (London: Sage, 2011); for
what concerns inquiries in French, see Aline Brochot and Martin de la Soudière,
eds. “Autour du lieu,” Communications 87 (2010).
2. Ed Casey speaks of an “obscuration of place” within philosophy, due to “the univer-
salism inherent in Western culture from the beginning.” Ed Casey, The Fate of Place
(Oakland, Calif.: University of California Press, 1997). Michel Foucault acknowl-
edged that nineteenth-century culture was obsessed with history, while the late
twentieth century should be considered as “the epoch of space.” Michel Foucault,
“Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias,” in Rethinking Architecture: A Reader
in Cultural Theory, ed. Neil Leach (New York: Routledge, 1997), 331.
3. In a recent interview, Soja spoke in terms of a “resurgence of interest in space
and spatial thinking” in the last decades, and tellingly added, “For many
disciplines—outside geography, architecture and urbanism—spatial think-
ing is very new.” (Edward W. Soja, Frédéric Dufaux, Philippe Gervais-Lambony,
Chloé Buire, Henri Desbois. Spatial Justice and the Right to the City: an Inter-
view with Edward Soja. Justice spatiale—Spatial justice, Université Paris Ouest
Nanterre La Défense, UMR LAVUE 7218, Laboratoire Mosaïques, 2011, Gender,
sexual identities and spatial justice, http://www.jssj.org/article/la-justice-spatiale
-et-le-droit-a-la-ville-un-entretien-avec-edward-soja/.
4. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. Edmund
Jephcott (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2002).
5. Arnold Gehlen, “Ende der Geschichte?” Einblicke (Frankfurt, Ger.: Klostermann,
1975), 115–33.
6. Marc Augé, Non-Places. Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, trans.
John Howe (London: Verso, 2008).
7. Cf. Trevor Barnes, “Critical Notes on Economic Geography from an Aging Radical.
Or Radical Notes on Economic Geography from a Critical Age,” ACME: An Interna-
tional Journal for Critical Geographies 1 (2002): 8–14.
8. Stewart Fotheringam, Chris Brunsdon, and Martin Charlton, Quantitative Geogra-
phy: Perspectives on Spatial Data Analysis (Los Angeles: Sage, 2000), 11.
9. Cf. Marc Barthelemy, Morphogenesis of Spatial Networks (New York: Springer,
2018).