signalnoise

I feel very pround of myself this week for figuring out how to connect to the Social Sciences server with X11, install X11, use xSTATA, upload my data to that server with Fugu, create logs in STATA, *and* perform the Hausman test in STATA 9. I'm no statistical wizard, but I feel sort of bad ass today.

Anyway, that aside, I've actually got something on my mind today...

Lately, as I work on my proposal, I've been doing a lot of reading on space, which is like the "final fronteir" of the social sciences. Sadly, that does not mean there are warp drives and Vulcans. Rather, what it means is that while "time" has long been priviliged as an expanatory element, space - as in the geography of the world and the environment that you inhabit - has pretty much gotten *no* attention what so ever.

Which is really, really unfortunate. Space is most often treated as "neutral" element. In other words, it is considered to be 1) pre-existing as well as immutable OR 2) to exert little meaningful influence on social behavior. Thus, even if we do not accept the first proposition - in other words, we grant that space does change - the second assumptions quickly renders space a null category. Dead data. In fact, a lot of this assumption about space comes out of a mischaracterization of prioritizing space as a simultaneous dismissal of human agency. A common argument is that emphasizing time also emphasizes change, and the capacity of human agents to recognize their past and thereby reorient their futures. Folks who prefer temporal explanations see "space" as a highly deterministic variable: "you inhabit this environments, ergo you will turn out as this kind of 'subject.'" But, that view is all a bunch of hooey.

Space, it turns out in completely unsurprising fashion, is a really dynamic field. Space doesn't just *exist* - rather space is created, in at least two senses. First, we actually build spaces - human beings struggle in the environment, and in doing so they clear fields, build cities, erect temples, and so on. They change/create space. The second manner in which space is created is through the *policing* of space. Now, do not misunderstand this as inherently the same as Foucaldian discipline - though it can encompass that. Rather, I am merely saying that we set *rules* for how space is used: walk here, fish there, don't hunt here, sell goods there, and so on. In this way, with respectively broad and finer brushes, we shape the world we live in .

But of course, we just don't push on space - space pushes back on. What events are allowed to occur, where those events happen, and the kinds of spaces we create shape who we become, as individuals and societies. Think about the center of a town: What does it mean if the city hall is there? What does it mean if a church is there? Or a market? How does that shape the way you use the city? What kind of message does it send when we put our religious buildings up on top of hills, so they tower over everything else? As I'm sure obd will attest to, how we structure spaces will influence who uses them, how often they are used, and what happens there. Spatial alignments change behavior, which change perceptions of the world.

Now, this is *not* deterministic - it does not have to be structuralism a la Althusseur. If we remember where we started, it was with human beings shaping space. There is still agency. Space is an *influence* - we still retain a capacity to evaluate space and the world, and to try and change to better align with our preferences. In that way, space is a highly *politicized* construct. Thus, there is conflict over what spaces we will create, and the rules about using them. It's not determined, it's about actors competing to shape space in the way they prefer.

In that light, I think the spatial construct has a lot to offer. By focusing on current situations, and the reality of a struggle between actors with different interests (that in turn translate into unique spatial preferences), spatial analysis brings the political elements of the human experience to light in a manner that a historical/temporal focus does not. The temporal approach too often leads to grand narratives and views of a monolithic collectivity that while not wholly *inaccurate,* really misrepresents historical reality. Change does not occur because of overriding imperatives of social relation or a zeitgeist; rather it happens when lot of individuals and small groups cooperate to achieve the same goal - making compromises and overcoming barriers. Thus, space is political - about the immediate conflict over resources - in a way that time is not necessarily.

Now, that doesn't mean we toss time out. It's still a part of analysis, it just means we create room for space too.

Of course, a lot of spatial analysis is not perfect. Many of the geographers and social theorists who have picked up on space come out of a strong Marxist tradition. Now, I think Marx was a smart guy who taught us a lot about capitalism, alienation, and so on. His theory of history ... I'm not totally convinced. He's on to something - but again, you miss a lot of the *details,* and those matter. The problem is that a lot of Marxist analysis of space tends to run like this: "All space has been re-ordered to benefit capital." Then, they take you through suburbanization or industrialization or whatever, and lay out how that really, *really* helps capital.

This kind of backwards analysis always bugs me. It seems like if you do this, you know the answer even before you begin. In other words, no matter *what* the spatial form is - you can probably "analyze" it so that it "benefits" capital. I'm just wary of disregarding other issues - such as gender, race, nation, religion, and all kinds of other values. These not only shaped history and day-to-day choice, they obviously are also important to space. Essentially, politics (and human experience) is more than the system of production. Now, capitalism certainly is important for what happens in our world - I don't think there's anyway we can deny the importance of the economic system in any society. I just don't like when it *subsumes* all other categories of analysis. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and smacks of bad social science - driven by a normative agenda rather than an interest in how the world is unfolding.

So, that said, the real question is: what does drive spatial creation then? It appears that the engine behind that can be just as diverse as the panopoly of political issues we face everyday. It's not *one* mover - rather, space is a really complicated tapestry, on which we write all of our values and prejudices. Which makes things more complicated ... but really, makes them more *interesting* if you ask me.