http://www.google.com/
… And …
“And”, the word that connects, is the real problem for space and culture. And is what enables both the possibility of spatialization, as the virtual-material creation of a relational presence, as well as the possibility for ‘objectification’, as the creation of flows of repetitions of presence, as that which returns and therefore appears to ‘last’ over time.
These are perhaps somewhat strange remarks, for, after more than 15 years of the journal, we should already know what space and culture is about. However things have changed. The world is not the same anymore. Until recently, it was beyond doubt that for us, culture had something to do with ‘everyday life’ as well as ‘meaning’. It was also clear that we engaged with a notion of ’social spatialization’ as a common, everyday pratice.
The special place of the everyday is not in question; however, we want to invite you to think in a more radical empirical way about what everydayness is, and therefore what ‘social spatialization’ could be in relation to what we still call ‘culture’, but perhaps within a radically different analytical ethos. Following Gabriel Tarde, we need to acknowledge that the notion of ‘ordinary everydayness’ is constituted by repetitions. Only through repetitions can we become aware of ‘ordinariness’ (as patterns of repetitions). Repetition is of course already inscribed in the very word everyday.
The everyday is, in the first instance, conceptualized as space. The repetition of specific actions, which constitutes ordinariness, is spatially manifest because it is a frequency: it makes “time” visible. This thus means that the temporal inscription of the everyday, as intervals marking the frequency of repetitions, is that which enables the very possibility of thinking space.
…Joost
2 Comments
although i am an outsider here, i’m interested to see you raising matters for discussion. i’ve followed this blog for about five years — even left comments under a pseudonym years ago, before i retired — and i’ve been puzzled by the lack of discussion here. i’ve also been puzzled by the narrowness of the range of the topics that show up here.
my personal view is that people’s mindsets and broader cultures rest on their orientations to space, time, and action. figure out those orientations, and you’ll go a long way to understanding why and how people behave and believe in the ways they do. i’m not saying anything entirely original there. what may be original is my insistence on including all three orientations: space, time, and action. but i’m in no positon to insist, since i’ve barely written the idea up, except for a few blog posts. yet, by mentioning it, i indicate my vital interest in the topic.
indeed, space and culture is a very worthy and significant topic. your post reflects this. and it sounds as though you are rethinking a research agenda.
but i would wonder about the “everydayness” you propose to emphasize. it sounds interesting — and i await your elaboration — but if it is to be mainly about “ordinary everydayness,” it may also be somewhat limiting. all sorts of extreme not-so-everday things are going on around the world — meaning an “extreme everydayness” or “everyday extremeness” is the norm in many places. and i think more and better spatial analysis could be illuminating about that too.
but that is because i remain very interested in security and political matters, especially ones involving extreme kinds of conflict. such matters rarely arise at this blog. and maybe that’s to remain the case. but, for example, i see agendas about terrorism, millenarianism, tribalism, and related matters where the mentalities and cultures of the actors might be usefully subjected to spatial (if not space-time-action) analysis. and there are many brighter topics — e.g., the arab spring — where new kinds of spatial orientations are in play, in everyday and not-so-everday ways.
i apologize if my sudden lengthy intrusion is completely out of sync with this blog and its purposes. but it’s about the only blog left on space orientations (and there’s not one on time and culture). i remain keenly interested in the general topic, albeit from particular perspectives. it has more analytical and theoretical potential than is being realized. hence my interest in your post.
onward.
Hello David,
many thanks for your reflections. The comments are not out of snc and if
they were, even better! Personally, I am very interested in the limits of
the everyday, especially when there is a breakdown, out of which something
extraordinary emerges (and may become news). We do need to engage exactly
with those issues that emerge as extraordinary spaces, yet retain an
everydayness, for many because they do not have to live in them, but also
for those who need to get used to them in order to live. The reason there
is little discussion on this blog is perhaps because we are a little too
academic sometimes and do not trust ourselves to take part in such open
debates. We did something a few years ago about Hurricane Katrina and this
proved to be a great experiment. Thank you therefore for showing an
intrerest. I intend to become more active on the blog, so that we increase
the chance that contributions like yours are being noticed and discussed.
So indeed, it does not need to be orderly or even ordinary everdyness that
we could focus on.
Regarding your comments about time and culture: we do take those on board,
I would not be able to talk about repetition or imitation or frequency
without a temporal dimension, just as we could not talk about breakdown,
innovation or rapture without a sense of time.
Every Good Wish
Joost