The Spatial Turn
Edward Soja and Henri Lefebvre
By Tugrul Keskin
Portland State University
The
modern understanding of ‘urbanization’ began with the industrialization process
in England and later flourished all over Europe at the end of the 18th
century as a result of capitalism. Consequently, the city or the metropolis
cannot be separated from the capitalist mode of production. This new economic
condition and process also changed and shaped social and political conditions,
which has resulted modernization, individualism and the most importantly –
because of the class subject – space. The term space has a very different
meaning in modern societies than it does to primitive and traditional
societies, because space as a new modern political and social geography has
culminated in the 19 and 20th century political, social and economic
life; and has tried to eliminate traditional ways of life. Concepts such as
colonialism, the nation-state, metropolis, territorialization, urban life, individualism,
suburbs, downtowns, ghettos, and stateless nations (for example the Kurds,
Uyghurs and Tamils) are related with space. Malls too, are less or more related
with space or the concept of spatial. We can expand the list from politics to
individual life as George Simmel attempted to do in his analysis of the late 19
and early 20th century Germany as a comparison between city life and the
individual; Simmel tried to understand how these two concepts related to each
other and affected one another within the modern way of life as a new urban
phenomenon.
According
to Simmel, the metropolis freed man from his taboos or dogmas, which are rooted
in tradition, and religion that connected men to community-based life. However,
Simmel also argues that man’s freedom and individuality does not really mean
that man is really free, but that he is instead more dependent on others.
Classical theorists, such as Marx, Weber and Durkheim, all see urbanization as
a product of the industrialization that created a more complex societal
structure and way of life.
As
capitalism has regulated every part of human life in order to create its mode
of production through cities, it has also attempted to control social and
cultural structures and mentalities from the individual level to that of the
societal. In this context, museums, zoos, theaters, entertainment centers and
many other structures have also been created as a new space. In the
industrialization process, examples of sacred spaces that were created included
churches and cemeteries.
In
modern times, the 20th century space was treated as death, fixed,
the undialectical and the immobile; however, space shouldn’t be reviewed in the
context of a static concept, it changes over time and geography. For example,
public and private spaces show us that the concept rapidly changes even from
the personal level to the societal level. One of the most important
observations might be found in the construction of human geographies, the
social production of space and the restless formation and reformation of
geographical landscape in the metropolis. In Muslim populated societies, space
have also been produced and reproduced in the context of the relation between
Islam and capitalism, such as Islamic versus secular space - Istanbul versus
Ankara (Turkey), Riyadh versus Mecca (Saudi Arabia), Tehran versus Qum (Iran)
or newly capitalist cities have been also created like Dubai, or the old versus
the new Cairo, and has reformed itself and stays between the secular and
religious as a chaotic space. Hence, space also can be seen as the geography of
social and political resistance. In this context, There are Mosques in
Istanbul, Turkey and some of them are 400 or 300 years old, neighborhood around
these mosques are actually a space that Islamic groups and movements or Islamic
orders called Tariqahs have used the space for political mobilization following
the secularization process in Turkey. This has been a space for resistance. Political
groups have tried to control space in order claim their hegemony. On the other hand, secularists use non-Mosque
neighborhoods in order to separate themselves from other neighborhoods. This
reminds me of Lefebvre’s understanding of space, in which space is a part of
domination and control. Groups or individuals try to control space and form,
and reform the concept of spatiality in order to have more power. In this
context, space is understood as power; therefore, space is an ongoing process
of the reformation of power. Resistance can be seen as external space as
Foucault argues, because this is a socially – as well as politically-produced
space. However, in the case of museums, space exercises its power through
time.
Another
example of Lefebvre’s approach can be found in examining HG TV. This TV channel
is dedicated to TV shows for home renovations and personal space. This reminds
me of hegemony and power of personal space through renovations. This seems to
be a reflection of the inability of an individual to exercise his or her power
outside and the absence of control over social space, but their homes become
their resistance against external space.
In short, space or the metropolis is part of the historical geography of capitalism in which power is employed through the new spatiality of capitalism. Personally, I have read Lefebvre’s book on the Sociology of Marx and I found it very interesting that he is a Marxist, yet is not as rigid as Althusser, and not as light as Foucault. On the other hand, Soja’s view of the spatial, and modern cities cannot be applied to any other parts of world but Los Angeles.
