PDF The Power of Planning - Spaces of Control and Transformation (GEOJOURNAL LIBRARY Volume 67)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Power of Planning - Spaces of Control and Transformation (GEOJOURNAL LIBRARY Volume 67) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Power of Planning - Spaces of Control and Transformation (GEOJOURNAL LIBRARY Volume 67) book. Happy reading The Power of Planning - Spaces of Control and Transformation (GEOJOURNAL LIBRARY Volume 67) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Power of Planning - Spaces of Control and Transformation (GEOJOURNAL LIBRARY Volume 67) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Power of Planning - Spaces of Control and Transformation (GEOJOURNAL LIBRARY Volume 67) Pocket Guide.

The year marked a moment when students across the globe, in cities such as Paris, Berkeley, New York, Prague, Berlin, London, Rome and Warsaw, demanded profound transformations in the conception of social relations and transformed the city into a theater of social and political upheaval.

Lefebvre was undoubtedly influenced by the revolutionary socio-political movements of his time, and particularly by the student movement in Paris, known as Mai As globalization tendencies continue to spur concerns over the growing inequality and disenfranchisement among urban inhabitants, geographers and other social scientists have developed an important body of theoretical and empirical work examining the relationships between global restructuring and urban governance.

These movements have been based on specific identities of difference such as ethnicity, class, sexuality, gender, age, disability, homelessness, among other characteristics and have sought claims to economic, environmental, social and spatial justice. The concept aims to protect all urban dwellers, and, as often specified in related charters and statutes, especially members of the following particularly threatened groups: poor or low-income groups, the homeless, women, victims of violence, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, youth, children, ethnic minorities, displaced persons, immigrant workers and refugees.

Along with the proposed World Charter, other urban experts, such as the European Council of Town Planners, identify not only residents but users of the city including commuters and visitors as urban citizens and advocate the participation of these mobile and temporary urban residents in the planning, management and decision-making processes of the city. The Campaign demonstrates how these principles can be translated into practical measures, through national policy reform activities making use of toolkits focusing on issues such as participatory decision-making, transparency in local governance, and participatory budgeting.

In Colombo Sri Lanka , the Colombo City Consultation was founded in order to improve urban governance through developing revenue mobilization, increasing community participation, and decentralizing municipal services. Other projects have targeted specific populations of particularly threatened groups, such as the following programmes which are geared toward:. The poor : Non-governmental groups have sponsored workshops in which residents of low-income settlements work with trained professionals to identify key housing problems, brainstorm possible solutions, and formulate action plans.

The public debate launched by UN-HABITAT and UNESCO on March 18, , and drawing on the expertise of numerous researchers, municipal representatives and NGOs, should highlight the interest of this kind of inter-agency, interdisciplinary cooperation insofar as to promote social cohesion, urban cultural diversity, solidarity and education to urban citizenship, democratic urban governance and sustainable urban development for all dwellers. Buroni, T. Harvey, D. Lefebvre, H.

Mitchell, D. The Right to the City. Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York: Guilford Press, Pincetl, S. Purcell, M.

Numéros en texte intégral

Salmon, S. Sandercock, L. Sassen, S. These two spatial contexts serve as the arenas for most economic and social activities in capitalist systems. The crucial importance of scale distinction when dealing with time-space was suggested by Parkes and Thrift. It is also necessary to establish the right correspondence of scales; in some cases the spatial scale may be right and the temporal scale incongruous, and in other instances the inverse may be the case or both may be wrong!

The comparison that follows is not supposed to be exhaustive, but follows the characteristics of time as suggested in the literature devoted to human behavior. The discussion starts with the differences between the two scales and proceeds to the similarities. One of the cornerstones of time-space frameworks is the assumption that time is a limited resource. Time is finite in terms of its availability to a human being; therefore, it should be dealt with economically in the same manner as all other production factors. It is true that certain development plans sometimes call for spatial change to take place within limited time boundaries; five-year plans are an example.

But it is also true that lagging behind schedule is possible from the viewpoint of time availability for society, whereas the time an individual might use is limited by his or her life span. The time limits of individuals may sometimes be aggregated into a population time limit, as in certain travel studies, like one that suggested that "during a fixed interval of time, a population of given size has a particular amount of time at its disposal.

It also seems that time is often used by individuals to adapt to a given spatial organization. This is one of the bases of Chapin's action spaces and Fred's time-space framework for innovations. This is performed either through or without formal institutions. It may be argued that these two processes are mutually complementary, that is to say, that a long-run process of adaptation of individuals to a given spatial organization creates changes in that organization, and vice versa. It is still important, however, to realize the difference in attitude toward time in the space of individuals, in their daily life, and in the long-run development of society.

Thus, society has been shown to have, through long-range planning, a broader future horizon than does the individual as well as longer past experience. This idea has its roots in the conception that time is a usable and finite resource although Melbin claims that "space and time together form the container of life activity. Thus time is always used, though there are slower and faster periods of change of any kind. Society may try, however, to make more efficient use of time in space by using 24 hours a day, a point to which we shall return in a later chapter.

Another form of colonization of time that pertains to both individuals and societies is the longer life expectancy in modern societies. This makes for the need to plan for a longer "third age" by both individuals and societies. It explains, for example, some of the growth of the U. A third characteristic of time for the individual lies in its being a personal experience; in Rose's descriptive trio, time may be "lived," "subjective," and an "ingredient. Rose argues that Hagerstrand's view of time is a framework rather than a phenomenological-experiential idea.

Again it is obvious that society does not "feel" time as a psychological experience although certain elements of time-experience may be related to macro-scale time, too, when an inter-society comparison of time-use is being made, based on differences in social values and constraints. The same is true when differences between men and women regarding the perception of time and space are traced. Parkes differentiated among three types of time: biological, psychological and socio-ecological. These were related by Thrift to four levels in the social system: superstructure, built environment, activity systems, and attitudes and perceptions.

The weight of socio-ecological time, on the other hand, is much larger in societal time-space than in an individual's time-space. In addition to the differences between time at the societal and human scales, several similarities can also be identified. In both scales, time is more than just "a ladder for processes to climb on" and more than "a locational and co-locational continuum. It is foremost a basic resource, and at the societal scale it is also a major factor determining spatial change.

This factor, or in other words, the time needed for some spatial change to happen, differs from one system to another e. By the same token, private entrepreneurship in one society may be encouraged, and many people will therefore take a chance on using risky locations in view of some evolving or expected economic change; in another society, taking economic risks may not be a social goal or the government might play a larger role in the space economy, thus reducing risks.

Time budgets will reflect cultural objectives, technologies, resources; the geography of the intensity of occupance by residence times will be a mirror image of the latter. Any change in, say, the friction of distance will be reflected in time budgets. Thus, we may identify "tempral intensity" as being comparable to spatial intensity concerning the use of time by society. If "relative" time is large, then attempts to intensify time-use will be low, and vice versa. The time-space approach to human spatial behavior maintains that time-space use is limited to those constraints defined by Hagerstrand as capability, coupling, and authority constraints.

Coupling constraints refer to the cooperation and coordination between two or more people in order to perform certain tasks. Authority constraints are, for example, "no entrance" road signs that limit spatial and temporal movements. At the societal level, the "use" of time by a certain society for some spatial change or for the adjustment of one spatial system to a change in another is mainly limited by authority constraints.

These may take many forms: There are master plans, zoning laws, etc. In another study, Hagerstrand recognized eight basic limitations of human time-space behavior. Of these limitations, the first four have no meaning at the societal scale, but the last four do. For societies, too, there is a limit to space as a resource, there is a past time behind every present, and movement consumes time. Carlstein mentioned the notion of "positive constraints" in general, but the stimuli for both human individual and societal action provided by time and space have still to be explroed.

But neither does Giddens, who voiced this criticism, put forth any positive thesis about the source of human action. The basically constraining view of time-space by the Swedish school has been attributed to the more restricting connotation of the Swedish word, rum space , compared to the openness and boundlessness of its English equivalent - space. The movement of an individual from one place to another may cause a second mvoement, which might be of a cyclical nature commuting, for example or of a cumulative nature residential change. At the societal scale, any spatial event may be interpreted as being dependent on a former event; thus we may mostly refer to change as an accumulation of some smaller changes or as a link in a longer chain both temporal and spatial.

These societal, macro-scale interdependencies are, therefore, mostly cumulative rather than cyclical. A major hidden assumption of the Hagerstrand approach to individuals' time and space is that the two are movement resources , restricted in nature. As such, the conception of time and space is contextual rather than compositional.

This might be the reason that people's activities are assessed independently of their social settings, and why there is no consideration of power. Above all, they are production resources, major organizational dimensions, and containers. If time and space are assumed to be the major movement constraints of individuals, then time and space are not only homologous in nature, but inseparable as well. The question is whether this may also be said about the nature of societal time-space, which has production and organizational dimensions, too.

Moreover, the additional significance of societal time and space may entail different relations between them from those between individuals. These questions will be discussed in the next chapter, which is devoted to the time-space homology. Another area of similarity between the human and societal scales is in the nature of time. Following Rose's comments on Hagerstrand's time-geography, it is possible to recognize time at both scales as being abstract, a priori defined, and mostly non-experiential. The study of individual space developed within the subdisciplines of behavioral geography and environmental psychology, especially since the early s.

It usually has not concentrated on the study of small spaces, such as rooms and homes per se, but rather on their interrelationships with their users, mainly individuals. Thus, studies have concentrated on such aspects as movement about small spaces, their organization and use, their image, and constraints. Some of the major terms are outlined below. A differentiation may be made between two forms of individual spaces.

On the one hand, there is the more fixed territoriality, the attachment of people to spaces such as rooms and homes; on the other hand, there is the rather more dynamic personal space, which constantly surrounds every human being like a bubble. One type is action space, defined as "the collection of all urban locations about which the individual has information, and the subjective utility or preference he associates with these locations.

These, on their part, have to do with social interaction in space, or social space. Although large, human-shaped spaces, such as cities, regions and countries, have traditionally been the domain of inquiry for human geography, the emphasis has usually been on the spatial organization of human-made artifacts, such as homes, roads, factories, etc. Two exceptions should be mentioned in this regard: the more traditional study of the creation of a national identity of territoriality and the more modern study of the sociospatial dialectic.

The first of the two subjects refers to the territorial aspect of statehood. Thus, Hartshorn identified centrifugal or disturbing and centripetal, or assisting forces at work in the creation of a national identity of territoriality. Gottmann emphasized the role of accessibility in the shaping of societal territorial orientation, and Knight discussed territorial attachment at the level of nation and region. Furthermore, they relate to the 14 CHAPTER 1 significance of space as a politcial symbol and tool, thus ignoring social and cultural significances and their interrelationships with social change.

The sociospatial dialectic was proposed by Soja, in order to view society and space within a unified framework, in which the two entities constantly influence each other.

Planning load into more cargo spaces

In addition, some possible interconnections between societal time and societal space will be identified. Before moving to these discussions, however, further attention should be given to societal space by way of comparison with individual space, in similar fashion to what was done for time. Here, too, the discussion will start with some differences between the two, followed by several similarities. A major difference between individual time and societal time, discussed in the preceding section, is the finitude of individual time, compared to the relative infinitude of societal time.

Duration has, thus, different meanings in these two times. Equivalent "durations in space" would mean the ability to spread activities on chunks of space. This ability is limited for the individual. Although people's activity space consists of home, work place, shopping, and social space, they obviously cannot be in at more than one place at a time. This indivisibility of the human being was mentioned earlier as a capability constraint for action.

The Power of Planning: Spaces of Control and Transformation (GeoJournal Library)

When it comes to society, whether urban, regional, or national one, this constraint does not apply. Limits, though are set on societal duration in space by authority constraints boundaries or by the terrestrial size of space islands, for example. Still, it may be argued that society exists and performs in more than one point at a time. An urban society, for example, though using a relatively small space, consists of many activities, at any given time, in many small loci of both production and consumption.

Despite the more limited extent of individual space, the individual has an advantage over society, when it comes to spatial dynamics, or transitions in activity spaces, because of human indivisibility. A person's action and activity spaces may shrink, expand or change altogether, quite drastically. Transitions in the spatial horizon of a given society are slower and sometimes next to impossible.

A nation may expand spatially in two ways, internally and externally. Internally, a new inter-regional equilibrium may be created when some regions enjoy development or when other regions lose population and economic activities. Such processes are normally described in terms of center-periphery relations. Achieving positive regional change is a national goal of most nations, but has become a difficult target, whatever means are used. This usually takes place, not in a process-like manner, but in the form of single events; obviously, not all such annexations result in an integration of the new territories with the old ones.

One may attach the term intensity to both types of space. A farmer may cultivate a field at different levels of intensity, and an urban society may use urban space at different levels of intensity. The term density, however, applies at the societal level only, since by definition it relates to the number of people, or any other unit, on a given piece of land. In addition to their differences, individual and societal spaces also exhibit similarities.

Foremost among these is the fact that space for both individuals and societies is not a mere passive dimension on which all human activities take place. It is a political dimension for municipal and national jurisdictions; it is an economic resource expressed in land prices; it is a constraint for human activity, since it is limited and requires movement efforts and time to reach its several components; and finally it provides for individual and societal experiences.

Space as an experience is an important element. An individual may sense landscapes and places, and create internal images and mental maps of them. These personal experiences relate to natural environments as well as to the aesthetics of man-made urban environments. They have become foci of study within the disciplines of humanistic-cultural geography and architecture.

Both personal and societal spatial experiences may be influenced by the territorial size of countries and by their internal regional organization. As previously discussed, this limit might turn out to be less restrictive for individuals than for societies expanding into new territories. Individuals and societies are also restricted by several authority constraints that regulate their movements and uses of space.

These limitations may be part of the legal system or may stem from other sources, such as economic-political restraints or cultural-religious values. Individuals' activity spaces are established within societal spaces; on the other hand, new components of individuals' activity spaces create expanded societal ones. By the same token, societal spaces are dependent on individual ones, since they may be viewed as consisting of many, interacting individual spaces. On the other hand, personal activity spaces are dependent on the limits and several components of societal spaces. Summary and Conclusion The discussions in this chapter have attempted several objectives that together serve as the basis of the following chapter.

The discussion went from the more general to the more specific. First, geographic perspectives on the need for a joint treatment of time and space were briefly presented. Third, some preliminary notions on the special attitude of structuration theory to time and space were outlined. Fourth, two comparisons were made: between individual and societal time and space, respectively. Thus, four forms of time and space have been identified; individuals' and societal times and individual and societal spaces. The discussion leaned more toward societal time and space, since they will be in the focus of the chapters that follow.

Retailing: Critical Concepts

Putting the four forms together, one may ask, what their ranking is in terms of flexibility for human use. It seems that societal time is the most flexible of the four. It is infinite, and this is its most important asset. Being abstract and without any visible boundaries has made societal time a dimension that has been undergoing major changes since the industrial revolution. These changes will be traced in our discussion of time versus space within the urban context.

Second in declining order of flexibility is personal space in its wider context of activity space. Although space is finite and bounded, it is still large enough compared to the size of a human being. If proper and cheaply priced communications and transportation technologies become available, then it will be possible for individuals to reach any point on earth or to enjoy maximum spatial flexibility, with but a limited time devoted to the moving process from one point to the other.

Third in order is societal space. Society may expand into new areas, especially within the urban context, but several limits would apply, especially the economic price of building new outlying facilities. Fourth, and most limited, is individual time, which is restricted by the finite human lifespan. This finitude is coupled with capability constraints of the human being that require a person to devote much time to physiological needs.

When it comes to societal time and space, several statements may be made that will serve as starting points for later discussions. Societal time and space are more than the aggregate time and space of all the individual members within a given society. Society acts not only through individuals but through institutions as well.

Then, too, individuals may operate beyond their immediate time and space. In addition, an individual may, through the use of communications, act beyond the activity space which he or she bodily reaches. Societal time and space as well as individual are more than just limiting movement resources, as implied by Hagerstrand. Above all, they are economic resources and organizational-ordering dimensions. At the societal level, there are constraints in addition to or instead of some of those identified by Hagerstrand. These relate to cultural values pertaining to time and space and to differences between men and women.

There are, at least at the societal level, positive enabling forces regarding the use of time and space. These may be related to the capitalist system or to national values, which call for a certain pace and certain norms of use of both time and space.

  • Soccer in Sun and Shadow (Revised and Updated Edition).
  • astronomy - introduction to astronomical photometry using ccd - romanishin.
  • supporting peaceful activism?
  • The Battle That Stopped Rome: Emperor Augustus, Arminius, and the Slaughter of the Legions in the Teutoburg Forest!
  • Cognitive Enhancement: Pharmacologic, Environmental and Genetic Factors?

Georgescu-Roegen, , p. Ad Hoc Committee on Geography, , p. Thrift b, p. Hagerstrand, ; ; ; Chapin, Pred, a, p. Taylor and parkes, A temporal perspective is typical to the study of diffusion, which from the outset has dealt with time and space simultaneously. The conception of time in diffusion studies has been criticized as referring to the use of time "as a ladder for processes to climb on" Thrift a , rather than adopting a chronosophical approach Fraser, Wilson, ; Carnap, Harvey, , p.

Berry, Harvey, op. Hagerstrand, , p. Pred, , p. The differentiation among four levels in symbolic logic was originally proposed by Carnap The rationale for a locational positivist study of time-space at the macro-level of urban areas is that the nature of change in urban space can only be understood if a contextual study of both the temporal and spatial dimensions is considered simultaneously with the compositional changes in several economic and social sectors see Kellerman, This perspective was demonstrated in a study of suburbanization and exurbanization trends in Philadelphia Kellerman and Krakover, Kellerman, a; Glddens, ; ; For discussions and summaries of structuration theory see e.

The role of structuration as a contextual approach was recently discussed by Thrift and by Rose Several opinions on the importance of space to current social theory have been expressed in Urry and Gregory, ; Saunders, , pp. See also Kellerman, a. This last point on humanism and structures in structuration was discussed by Pred, General accounts on geography and structuration have been provided by Thrift , Gregory a; b , and Pred ; Pred, Gregory, a.

Gregson, On bracketing see Giddens, , pp. It was implemented recently by Moos and Dear, ; Dear and Moos, Society at large as the preferred level of analysis was mentioned by Giddens, , p. Gregory, , pp. Parkes and Thrift, Goldman, , p. Major works on the sociology of time include Moore, ; Gurvitch, ; Zentner, ; Kolaja, ; Fraser, ; Zerubavel, Baker, , p. Durkheim, On the distinction between private time and public time see Thrift, ; Kern, , pp.

Luhmann, , p. Bergson, Giddens, , p. Giddens, , pp. See also , p.

Retailing: Critical Concepts

Parkes and Thrift, , p. Soule, ; Becker, ; Ghez and Becker, Thrift, a, p. Shackle, ; Lynch ; Thrift, b. Ellegard, et al. Chapin, ; Pred, On the broader societal future horizon, see Kellerman, On the longer societal past experiences see Giddens, , p. Melbin, a; b. Melbin, a, pp. Rose, Parkes, ; ; ; Thrift, a. Thrift, op. For a detailed discussion of this point, see Kellerman and Krakover, Curry, , p. Carlstein et al.. Carlstein 's , p. While Carlstein relates to social constraints and uses of time, my distinction in the preceding section related to philosophical aspects of time as context and composition.

It is in line with the conventional distinction between absolute and relative space. This is one of several examples that will be noted of terms being used in different ways by various authors. Hagerstrand, Carlstein, , p. Gould, Gold, , p. Porteous, , pp. Horton and Reynolds, , p. Jakle et al. Ley, , p. Hartshorn, ; Gottmann, ; Knight, Soja, Kellerman, ; a; Kellerman and Krakover, For humanistic-cultural geography discussions, see e. Relph, ; Tuan, For an architectural perspective see e. Lynch, Israel, as a case study of a small country in which regional boundaries are sometimes blurred in spatial experiences, is discussed in Shamai and Kellerman, Time-space approaches using different perspectives, have been proposed for several areas of study.

Thus, Harvey noted a general positivistic theory in geography: "it will explore the links between indigenous theories of spatial form and derivative theories of temporal process. The links run in both directions. The connecting thread between the discussion of time-space in general, on the one hand, and the several particular terms, on the other, will be the question whether there exists a time-space homology at the macro-societal scale.

This is a basic question, since a hidden assumption behind the time-space analysis of individuals is that such a homology does exist. It will be argued that this cannot automatically be assumed for the societal-macro scale. The analysis of a societal time-space homology is important, since it could serve as yet another building block for the currently evolving social theory of space.

It could illuminate the extent to which time and space may be considered homologous at the macro level. Furthermore, the interrelationships of these two basic elements of human life and social structure may be better understood if the specific time-space dual concepts are carefully applied to the societal level. The chapter will start with a discussion of time-space at the societal level. First, the roots for the joint treatment of time and space will be highlighted, to be follwoed by an introduction of a simple typology of time, space and society at the urban level.

With the exclusion of Hagerstrand's and Giddens' works, explicit discussions on time-space at the societal urban, regional, or national levels are relatively rare. The comprehensive text by Parkes and Thrift published in , provided a detailed discussion of social time but very little, if at all, explicit discussion of time-space at the societal level.

The use of the phrase "time-space" is itself problematic. It implies, a priori , that time and space are one entity or at least homologous. It is difficult to adopt such a general homology, since it has to be proved separately for distinct historical periods, geographical locations, and social levels. In a rarely quoted paper, Ed Ullman argued that "in general terms, space is conceived of as a passive and, to this writer, a more concrete dimension than time; time is a more active and more mental construct.

Space implies being , time implies becoming. Thus, we should distinguish between 'temporaf and the 'spatial-temporal', rather than simply the temporal and the spatial. This can be shown from perspectives as varied as language, human experience, religion, daily practice, history, philosophy, and social conditions. These varied perspectives on the connections between time and space will be briefly reviewed in the following paragraphs. La Gory and Pipkin refer linguistically, to the fact that many non-spatial variables, including time, are interpreted in spatial ways.

Giddens attributes this to the notion that all time measurements involve movements in space. From a religious point of view, it is interesting to note that the very first verses of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, namely the Creation story in the Book of Genesis, tell of the creation of both space and time on the first day space first, time second. On the more practical level of measurement, absolute space is measured in spatial units, while relative space distance is measured in temporal units, as well.

Thus, Mumford argued that each culture has its own time and space. Thus whereas the Middle Ages were characterized by time and space being independent from each other, the Renaissance established the philosophical unification of time and space. Finally, on a social level, Hagerstrand showed in his writings that both time and space create constraints on an individual's movement that justify their joint treatment.

All these aspects - linguistic measurement, philosophical, social - might explain some of the roots for the joint treatment of time and space. As will be shown later however, they do not provide any automatic justification for combining the two dimensions together when it comes to a societal analysis of modern societies.

Among the few who related to societal time-space is Carlstein, who referred to the time-geography of agricultural societies. This situation is unfortunate because time-space analysis easily lends itself to practically all of the currently prevailing modes of thought within geography. From a positivistic viewpoint one may extend the time-geography logic when looking, for example, for "the impact of a spatial economic change pacemaker on social-spatial organization, or how much time passes between a spatial-economic change until the spatial-political system adjusts itself to such a change marker , and what are the spatio-temporal characteristics of such processes synchronization, rate, duration, phase and phase shifts, limits.

In terms of Marxist epistemology, "studies of people's control of time should encompass the class struggle, identifying the policies and powers of conflicting social groups. Analyses of time-space at the societal level could provide excellent examples of the fact that these three approaches - positivistic, experiential, Marxist — may be complementary. In fact, the complementarity of the three epistemologies is revealed when a research problem is being focused on rather than an epistemological aspect, around which, of course, the extreme differences appear.

The importance of blending several approaches has been stressed in both geography and sociology. Time-Space and Urban Studies Following the exploration of the very idea of time-space at the societal level, we may now place side by side the three dimensions of time, space, and society. This comparison will identify some of their basic characteristics, and, by their integrative analysis, emphasize the special role of structuration.

The discussion will focus on the eity as a major object of social study along both time and space. A simple scale-elassification of the three dimensions, as in Table 1, yields micro, meso, and macro levels of reference. Urban studies normally deal with one or more of these dimensions at the meso level; namely, with a city and its urban society along a period of several years. It is possible, of course, to apply micro or macro time to the study of a eity from a spatial or societal viewpoint e. Absolute space and time are passive or "automatic" from a human viewpoint, and they serve as containers for social life.

Relative time and space only become active dimensions through human conception and action; otherwise, they may be viewed as movement, or economic or political resources. Their use at the societal level depends on culture, ideology, technology, and socio-political organization. Combining scale and syntax differentiations permits a comparative view of several disciplines focusing on the city Table 2. The study of relative-active time and space of urban society at the meso level urban societies in cities through the years is handled by a structurationist approach.

With the use of this approach, changing conceptions and uses of time and space by urban societies are at the core of interest. However, the study of the conceptions and uses of both time and space should not imply that whatever is true for time is also true for space, or vice versa. When presented graphically Figure 2, following a similar approach by Holly for the individual-micro level , the most studied inter-connections among time, space, and people seem to have taken place at one or more of the extreme edges of the three continuous dimensions.

Thus, for example, behavioral geography has focused on small spatial human units, while urban planning has dealt, at least partially, with a relatively distant future for city and region. The time dimension lends itself to two spectral presentations in contrast to space and society, which range mostly along size. The first option was preferred here, since time units are less central than is time tense when this dimension is compared to space and society.

Furthermore, time has been treated mostly as a passive than an active dimension, so that its direction is more significant than its size. We shall return to time size both with a discussion of temporality, and in Chapter 5, where Israeli temporalities will be discussed. Three major aspects of his approach to time-space at the societal level, will be reviewed here: the nature of time-space, time-space distanciation, and time-space and urbanism.

We shall concentrate here on the nature of time-space and the differences between time and space; the analysis will put into question whether time-space constitutes a homology, at least in Giddens' writings. Giddens rejected the view of time-space as mere "environments," "containers" or "categories of mind. These two views are not the same.

The first refers to time and space as compositional elements, while the second relates to time-space as contextual dimensions. Giddens has not made it known whether his two views are two contradictory alternatives or whether they are complementary. Interesting, too, is that Giddens did not provide a justification for the joint treatment of time and space at the societal level as their being "paths involving collectivities rather than individuals. This definition seems to be close to a "container" absolute-passive view of time-space, especially when it is related to societal "storage capacity.

The use of Giddens' major examples may assist in demonstrating this criticism: Before the innovation of irrigation, time was mainly experiential which is another view of time and restricted to a close past. Irrigation made it necessary to plan for a future time but, again, for a relatively short period of time. Spatially, the extent of distanciation became relatively large when more areas came under cultivation. The contrary is true for the introduction of writing. Although it assisted in controlling a distanciated space, the major impact of writing was on time in causing a major distanciation to past and future i.

In any case, Giddens views time and space in this regard as socially enabling forces rather than with the constraining outlook proposed by Hagerstrand for individuals. Time and space are crucial elements in the structuration process, and therefore Carlstein would like to see more discussion on the time-space constraints of structuration. One of the earliest accounts is Abraham's purchase of a gravesite for his wife, Sarah, as described in the Book of Genesis. Capitalism, thus, intensified the already existing commodification of space.

As we shall see in the next chapters, the process of time commodification in capitalism has made time into a more important resource and dimension than space, although the latter had been a commodity many years before time became such. His concepts, especially distanciation, represent attempts to understand when and through which processes the social becomes spatial and temporal though he does not refer to the process explicitly in these terms.

This transformation and the other side of the coin - namely, how the spatial and temporal become social -- may be studied through the concepts of temporality and spatiality, which will be done in a later section. Time, Space, and Society at the Urban Level The general discussion thus far presented may lead one to conclude that time and space at the urban societal level are both passive and active dimensions.

Urban society expands and extends its spatial and temporal dimensions by further invasion into time and space. On the more active side, and simultaneously with the expansion into passive time and space, urban society uses time and space as production resources. Lefebvre's view of space as becoming a social product may be extended to include time, as well, since the use of time also reflects social values and structures. The level of expansion into time and space and their use by urban societies change along time. Developments in communications and transportation technologies permit the use of more space for urban areas and make time use faster, more instant, and more efficient.

The ability to receive and use information instantly through the use of computer technologies may change attitudes toward time pace and use not only in production but in urban life in general. The uses of time and space and the further expansion into them do not necessarily have to be at the same pace and pattern. Telecommunication technologies may permit the use of more urban space while using less time for both production and consumption. Time and space are, thus, only partial homologues at the urban societal level.

The common phrase, Time-space'', cannot be used in a rather general sense, and the connotation of this term has to be specified. A general dialectic relationship pertains in the structuration process between human action in time-space and time-space structures. Individuals may, for example, move their residences farther outward in an urban area, assuming that a basic infrastructure exists to permit this move. The aggregated residential move of many individuals creates a new societal conception and use of urban space, since the urban area is now larger and might as well have new spatial and social patterns.

The attitude toward time and its use might change, too, as a result of urban spatial growth, since larger distances require further time use. The very act of moving outwards is itself dependent on social norms and values 28 CHAPTER 2 with regard to the use of urban space or time ; if society does not encourage further urban expansion, its likelihood of occurrence will be low. A pioneering attempt at urban modeling of structuration is the work of Moos and Dear.

The duality of structure that is the heart of structuration is left in a black box. As far as time and space are concerned, it seems that the two dimensions are treated contextually in the model, though Moos and Dear were aware of their compositional importance, as well. Their possible uses and significance for a societal time-space framework will now be discussed. It is equivalent in its generality to using the term "society" for every social phenomenon, ranging from socializing to social structure, and to using the general term "space" for every geographical aspect and process.

This dual-concept is not a simple homologue, since timing-space does not carry the same connotation as spacing-time. Timing-space was defined as the use of "time as a means to the patterning of space", while spacing-time was "the process of ordering objective clock or calendar time which is available for allocation to events and the awareness of the associated objective and subjective durations of those events, and their linkage to other events.

This dual-concept may be extended, though very partially, to societal time-space. Space is timed in terms of the number of non-redundant that is, synchronous and synchronistic activities that occur over some time period tp-t,. In this sense we may conceptualize city-fast and city-slow areas. There is an opportunity for policy-related intervention when the markers and pacemakers of time-space have been isolated.

In the first option, which deals with duration, space is passive, and only time is active. In the second option, which deals with pace, space and time are both active and passive. Thus, different urban spaces may be used as resources in several ways, and these spaces may shrink or expand during or as a result of changing uses.

Time is passive in the sense that urban changes occur in it; but it is also an active resource that determines the pace of these changes. The concept of timing-space may, thus, be extended from a time-space comparison at the intra-urban level to inter-city and inter-regional comparisons. The patterns of timed spaces with regard to both duration and pace are determined by the aggregate activities of many individuals and institutions, which, on their part, are integrated in deeper social structures and cultural superstructures.

On the other hand, the activities of both individuals and institutions may gradually change existing structures and superstructures. Time and space are, therefore, basic intermediate forces in the structuration process, in this case in the form of timing-spaces and timed spaces. Once again, time and space are seen, as being simultaneously passive and active social elements.

It would be artificial to ignore the role of either time or space or to relate to them only as active or passive. This is especially true when duration and pace are examined. Communications may serve as catalysts in the changing patterns of pace and duration of time and space. The latter, on their part, may determine human action at both the individual and institutional level. Spacing time at the societal level is even more limited than timing-space when the several scenarios for the time-spacing of individuals are examined.

Thus, only the following scenario may be applied at the societal level, as well. In the initial ante-relocation environment the sequence of event participation may have been quite different. Here, too, both time and space are both active and passive elements at the same time. Activities move in space and cause an extensive spacing of time. Time and space are, again, two-way intermediate forces between structures and superstructures, on the one hand, and human action, on the other. Their application is more general, carrying the same connotation for both temporality and spatiality and, hence, turning them into a full conceptual homologue.

It is difficult to point to a strictly formal definition of spatiality and temporality in the literature although the terms have been mentioned by several writers.

  1. GeoJournal Library.
  2. Romantic Visualities: Landscape, Gender and Romanticism.
  3. ISBN 13: 9781402005343!
  4. Finding Your Purpose: How to Find Your Purpose In Life and Make the Most of Your Time Here on Earth (A Non-Religious Perspective)!
  5. The latter term, originally proposed by Lefebvre and Harvey, is at the center of Soja's spatiality. Created space is one dimension the social of the more general compositional space that has been proposed as a counterpart to contextual space. Spatiality according to Soja, is another term for "the spatial organization of society. This definition is also the essence of Soja's "socio-spatial dialectic. What is missing in order to facilitate the dialectic between society and space is the societal conception of space. Is space viewed merely as a container or is it also a resource?

    Is it more of a social or political resource or is it rather an economic resource or is it perhaps both? These differentiations are still very crude when a specific society is the focus of study. One may assume that a particular conception of space reflects a unique mix of political, cultural, social, and econmoic aspects, in addition to the impact of an existing spatial organization of society.

    Obviously, these observations on space and spatiality are also true for time and temporality. The concept of temporality was addressed explicitly by Gross, who defined it as "the span of historically interpreted time, usually stretching from some originary point in the past a beginning, a founding movement down to the period of one's lifetime. This form of temporality Gross also terms longue duree , which differs from two shorter durations, the day-to-day one and the one relating to biological lifespan. Temporality is thus synonymous with memory.

    Several comments have to be made regarding Gross' definition. First, longue duree is not only longer than the two other forms of temporality, but foremost, it is also larger in the sense that its content relates not to one's individual but to societal-collective experiences. As such, it has wider significance regarding both present collective or shared uses of time and societal expectations of the future. Second, the emphasis on time remembrance and interpretation excludes time use, thus giving temporality a rather more passive connotation.

    Finally, he proposed three stages for changing temporalities in modern Western society: the religious, the national, and the capitalist. We shall return to these stages in our discussion of Israeli society Chapter 5. The two concepts, spatiality and temporality, may be defined as the conception and use of time and space by society or individuals, on a different level. The conception of space and time is the process by which the spatial and temporal become social, since existing spatial and temporal patterns and uses shape social values and norms regarding time and space.

    The use of time and space is the process by which the social becomes spatial and temporal, since these uses reflect social structures and values. Spatiality and temporality, therefore, are terms that encompass the two-way transformation processes between society, on the one hand, and time and space, on the other. As such, spatiality and temporality are basic elements of structuration. The idea of societal spatiality and temporality may originate with Kant, who viewed time and space as "pure forms of sensible intuition.

    Time and space are matters of individual or societal conceptions or, to paraphrase Lefebvre, the concepts of time and space are not within time and space but in Man and society. With this last point, temporality and spatiality seem to be closer to Giddens' "distanciation in time and space. Two points should be mentioned in this regard, however. First, societal temporality and spatiality are wider concepts than distanciation, since they refer to the conception of time and space as well as to their use.

    Second, distanciation seems to assume, at least implicitly, similar "expansion" patterns into both space and time. It will be argued later that spatiality and temporality do not necessarily share the same patterns within capitalist urban societies. Space is a physical entity itself, while time is an abstract dimension that cannot be considered apart from its contents.

    Merely stating that the universe exists by definition in time and space does not reveal the societal meanings and uses of the two dimensions for society. Since it is almost impossible to separate time and space from their uses and connotations, it is through these properties that societal time and space may be reified - and hence the basic need to use the terms spatiality and temporality in the social study of time and space.

    In short, temporality and spatiality provide a bridge between abstract time and space and the objects and events through which they are revealed and become socially meaningful. Structuration is an important language and construct in the study of spatiality and temporality, since it assumes a constant dialogue between society and social values, on the one hand, and time and space, on the other. Time and space are, thus, passive in the sense that societal action takes place in them; but they are also "active" in the sense that they may be used as active resources and 32 CHAPTER 2 dimensions.

    The use of time and space is bounded by social values, but these uses may in return reshape those same. Very often, therefore, studies of societal time and space are, actually studies of temporality and spatiality. Althusser and Balibar assigned different temporalities to several societal levels, while Lipietz did the same for spatialities;'" these writers, though, were more concerned with pace than with the conception and use of time-space.

    Temporality and spatiality in the context of the conception and use of time and space may be applied to many social studies. From a spatial-geographical viewpoint, an interesting avenue could, for example, be the study of differences in the conception and use of time and space between urban and rural societies. From a temporal viewpoint, differences in spatiality and temporality with regard to work and leisure time could be of interest, particularly since work and leisure are differentially related to by different social groups.

    Spatiality and temporality at the societal level bourgeois society between the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries have been referred to as the perception of space and time. It is sometimes difficult and even artificial to differentiate clearly between perception and conception at the societal level. Societal perception of time and space carries, however, a more experiential and passive connotation, which finds its expression in art, architecture, and culture. Societal conception of time and space carries a more socio-economic and active connotation.

    As such, it finds its expression in production and consumption modes and in social and spatial organization. Temporality and spatiality may be applied to time-space studies at the individual level, as well, since the movement of individuals in time-space constitutes their spatiality and temporality.

    The term "action-space," which refers to the geographical action field of an individual is, thus, part of a person's spatiality. Time-geography emphasizes the contextual rather than the compositional, so that spatiality and temporality within it are only partial and the conception of time and space by individuals is excluded.

    Individual time-space is beyond the scope of this volume; hence, it will suffice to note that integrating the knowledge on spatial conception gained in behavioral geography with time-geography could potentially produce a fuller temporality and spatiality for individuals. Spatiality and temporality present a homology that could have interesting implications for the evolving common field of sociology and geography.

    Both are social terms, since they relate to people's conception and action in time and space. On the other hand, people's uses of time and space result in the spatial organization of society that is of major interest for geographers. Comparing the temporalities and spatialities of several nations may shed new light on different modes of spatial and temporal organization.

    Time may be used in an intensive manner and space may be in extensive modes or vice versa. Thus, a homologous definition of time and space concepts does not automatically call for a practical, homologous, societal use of the two, as well. This last assertion will be the main thesis of the next chapter.


    HIC - Urban Policies and the Right to the City

    Nearly everything that should be understood through categories of continuity and duration is now approached through categories of space and measurement. One whole dimension of life is not only being defined in terms of another, but is being reduced to it. Hence, vertical relations are made to collapse into horizontal ones. Among the major causes of spatialization Gross counts urbanization and technology.

    There is not only a spatialization of time, according to Gross, but also of culture and the social sciences. Although Gross has not provided a formal definition of temporalization, it may be understood implicitly to mean a mode of thought which can be achieved only by intuition and introspection that would temporalize space, culture and social thought.

    Thus, an understanding of space would have required a stronger emphasis of continuity and duration rather than measurement, and vertical relations would play a larger role than horizontal ones in spatial analysis. The two concepts of spatialization and temporalization are, thus, homologous. Gross emphasized spatialization rather than the more preferred temporalization, since this is the currently prevailing process. The concept of spatialization does not have the simple connotation of "putting things in space," since it refers to the measuring, thinking, and conceiving of time in a "space-like" manner.

    Therefore, spatialization does not necessarily lead to the predominance of spatiality over temporality. In other words, if time is perceived, studied, and even used in forms traditionally attributed to space, it does not mean that space is more important than time in social life. On the contrary, it might well be argued as it will be in the next chapter that the spatialization of time has given the latter the once Immense powers of the former. And the same would be true of the temporalization of space.