222 <strong>The</strong> experience <strong>of</strong> space and timedefence against, human interaction. It imposes transactio"n costs uponany system <strong>of</strong> production and reproduction (particularly those basedon any elaborate social division <strong>of</strong> labour, trade, and social differentiation<strong>of</strong> reproductive functions). Distanciation (cf. Giddens, 1984,258-9) is simply a measure <strong>of</strong> the degree to which the friction <strong>of</strong>space has been overcome to accommodate social interaction.2 <strong>The</strong> appropriation <strong>of</strong> space examines the way in which space isoccupied by objects (house, factories, streets, etc.), activities (landuses), individuals, classes, or other social groupings. Systematizedand institutionalized appropriation may entail the production <strong>of</strong>territorially bounded forms <strong>of</strong> social solidarity.3 <strong>The</strong> domination <strong>of</strong> space reflects how individuals or powerfulgroups dominate the organization and production <strong>of</strong> space throughlegal or extra-legal means so as to exercise a greater degree <strong>of</strong> controleither over the friction <strong>of</strong> distance or over the manner in which spaceis appropriated by themselves or others.4 <strong>The</strong> production <strong>of</strong> space examines how new systems (actual orimagined) <strong>of</strong> land use, transport and communications, territorialorganization, etc. are produced, and how new modes <strong>of</strong> representation(e.g. information technology, computerized mapping, or design) arise.<strong>The</strong>se four dimensions to spatial practice are not independent <strong>of</strong> eachother. <strong>The</strong> friction <strong>of</strong> distance is implicit in any understanding <strong>of</strong> thedomination and appropriation <strong>of</strong> space, while the persistent appropriation<strong>of</strong> a space by a particular group (say the gang that hangs outon the street corner) amounts to a de facto domination <strong>of</strong> that space.<strong>The</strong> production <strong>of</strong> space, ins<strong>of</strong>ar as it reduces the friction <strong>of</strong> distance(capitalism's 'annihilation <strong>of</strong> space through time,' for example) altersdistanciation and the conditions <strong>of</strong> appropriation and domination.My purpose in setting up such a grid is not to attempt anysystematic exploration <strong>of</strong> the positions within it, though such anexamination would be <strong>of</strong> considerable interest (I have penned in afew controversial positionings within the grid for purposes <strong>of</strong> illustration,and would like to suggest that the different authors we haveso far examined concentrate on different facets <strong>of</strong> it). My purpose isto find some point <strong>of</strong> entry that will allow a deeper discussion <strong>of</strong>the shifting experience <strong>of</strong> space in the history <strong>of</strong> modernism andpostmodernism.<strong>The</strong> grid <strong>of</strong> spatial practices can tell us nothing important by itself.To suppose so would be to accept the idea that there is someuniversal spatial language independent <strong>of</strong> social practices. Spatiall"'"tIndividual spaces and times in social life 223practices derive their efficacy in social life only through the structure<strong>of</strong> social relations within which they come into play. Under thesocial relations <strong>of</strong> capitalism, for example, the spatial practices portryed-intlie gri(lJecome .. imbued with class meanings To put it thisway is-iiot;-however, to argue that spatial practices are derivative <strong>of</strong>capitalism. <strong>The</strong>y take on their meanings under specific social relations<strong>of</strong> class, gender, community, ethnicity, or race and get 'used up' or'worked over' in the course <strong>of</strong> social action. When placed in thecontext <strong>of</strong> capitalist social relations and imperatives (see chapter 14below), the grid helps unravel some <strong>of</strong> the complexity that prevailsin understanding the transformation <strong>of</strong> spatial experience associatedwith the shift from modernist to postmodernist ways <strong>of</strong> thinking.Gurvitch (1964) suggests an analogous framework for thinkingabout the meaning <strong>of</strong> time in social life. He addresses the issue <strong>of</strong> thesocial content <strong>of</strong> temporal practices directly, however, while avoidingissues <strong>of</strong> materiality, representation, and imagination <strong>of</strong> the sort thatLefebvre insists upon. His primary thesis is that particular socialformations (listed in the right-hand column <strong>of</strong> table 3.2) associatewith a specific sense <strong>of</strong> time. Out <strong>of</strong> that study comes an eightfoldclassification <strong>of</strong> the types <strong>of</strong> social time that have existed historically.This typology proves rather interesting in its implications.To begin with, it inverts the proposition that there is a time foreverything and proposes that we think, instead, <strong>of</strong> every social relationcontaining its own sense <strong>of</strong> time. It is tempting, for example, tothink <strong>of</strong> 1968 as an 'explosive' time (in which quite different behaviourswere suddenly deemed acceptable) emerging out <strong>of</strong> the'deceptive' time <strong>of</strong> Fordism - Keynesianism and giving way in thelate 1970s to the world <strong>of</strong> 'time in advance <strong>of</strong> itself' populated byspeculators, entrepreneurs, and debt-peddling finance capitalists. It isalso possible to use the typology to look at different senses <strong>of</strong> time atwork contemporaneously, with academics and other pr<strong>of</strong>essionalsperpetually condemned (it seems) to 'retarded time,' perhaps with amission to avert 'explosive' and 'erratic' times, and so restore to ussome sense <strong>of</strong> 'enduring' time (a world also populated by ecologistsand theologians). <strong>The</strong> potential mixes are intriguing, and I shall comeback to them later, since they shed light, I think, on the confusedtransition in the sense <strong>of</strong> time implied in the shift from modernist topostmodernist cultural practices.If there were an independent language (or semiotic) <strong>of</strong> time orspace (or time-space) we could at this point reasonably abandonsocial concerns and enquire more directly into the properties <strong>of</strong>space-time languages as means <strong>of</strong> communication in their own right.But since it is a fundamental axiom <strong>of</strong> my enquiry that time and
TypeEnduringtimeDeceptivetimeErratic timeCyclicaltimeRetardedtimeTable 3.2 Gurvich's typology <strong>of</strong> social timesLevelecologicalorganizedsocietysocial roles,collectiveattitudes(fashion) andtechnicalmIxesmysticalUnIonssocialsymbolsFormcontinuous timein which past isprojected in thepresent andfuture; easilyquantifiablelong and sloweddown durationmasking suddenand unexpectedcrises andruptures betweenpast and presenttime <strong>of</strong>uncertainty andaccentuatedcontingency inwhich presentprevails over pastand futurepast, present andfuture projectedinto each otheraccen tua tingcontinuity withinchange;diminution <strong>of</strong>contingencyfuture becomespresent so late asto be outmodedas soon as it iscrystallizedSocial formationskinships andlocalitygroupmgs(particularly ruralpeasant societiesand patriarchalstructures)large cities andpolitical 'publics';charismatic andtheocraticsocietiesnon-political'publics' (socialmovements andfashionfollowers);classes in process<strong>of</strong> formationastrologyfollowers;archaicsocieties in whichmythological,mystical andmagical beliefsprevailcommunity andits socialsymbols; guilds,pr<strong>of</strong>essions etc.feudalismIndividual spaces and times in social lifeTable 3.2 cont.TypeAlternatingtimeTime inadvance <strong>of</strong>itself(rushingforward)ExplosivetimeLevelrules, signals,signs andcollectiveconductcollectivetrans formativeaction andinnovationrevolutionaryferment andcollectivecreatIonSource: Gurvitch (1964)Formpast and futurecompete in thepresent;discontinuitywithoutcontingencydiscontinuity,contingency;qualitative changetriumphant; thefuture becomespresentpresent and pastdissolved into atranscendentfuture225Social formationsdynamiceconomIC groups;transition epochs(inception <strong>of</strong>capitalism)competitivecapitalism;speculationrevolutions andradicaltransformations<strong>of</strong> globalstructuresspace (or language, for that matter) cannot be understood independently<strong>of</strong> social action, I shall now shift the focus to a consideration<strong>of</strong> how power relations are always implicated in spatial and temporalpractices. This will then permit us to put these rather passive typologiesand possibilities into the more dynamic frame <strong>of</strong> historicalmaterialist conceptions <strong>of</strong> capitalist modernization.
Change language