‘This book enaases with the polities of social and environmental justice, and seeks neve waye to think about the future of urbanization in the twenty-first century. Tt establishes foundational concepts for understanding how space, time, place and nature ~ the material frames of daily life axe constituted and represented through social practices, nat as separate elements but in relation to ‘cach other, Itescribes how geographical differences are produced, and shows hhow they then become fundamental to the exploration of political, economic and ecological altematives to contemporary life “The book is divided into four parts, Part I describes the problematic nature of action and analysis at diferent scales of time and space, and introraces the reader to the modes of dialectical thinking ard discourse which are used throughout the remainder of the work, Part II examines how “nature” and “environment” have been understood and valued in relation to processes of social change and seeks, from this basis, to make sense of contemporary environmental isues Part Ill, in a wide ranging discussion of history, geoeraphy and culture, explores the meaning ofthe social production” of space and time, and clarifies problems related to “atherness” and “difference”. The final part of the book deploys the foundational arguments the author has established to consider contemporary problem of social justice that have resulted from recent changes in geographical divisions oflabor, in the environment, and in the pace and quality of whanization ‘Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference speaks toa wide readership of students of cocial, cultaral and spatial theory and of the dynamics of ‘contemporary life, tis convincing demonstration that itis both possible and necessary to value difference and to seek just social order. Justice, Nature & the Geography of Difference | KEAIOH | Joleyiq Jo AUdOIB085) pg SINJON ‘eoUsne David Harvey is Professor of Geography at the Johns Hopkins University From 1987-1993 he was Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography at Osford University. He received the Outstanding Contributor Awaed from the Association of American Geographers in 1980: the Anders Revins Gold Medal from the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geosraphy in 1989: the Patron's Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1995, and the \Vautrin Lud Prize in France in the same year. His books include Explanation in Geography (1969); Sociol Justice and ihe City (1973, new edition 1988)"; The Limits to Capital (1982)"; The Urban Experience (1988)", and The Condition of Postredernity (1989)". "Published by Blackwell Coram sie ly Ha He Pt Chi No Yo on Barrette David Harvey | IB TEES oles aboats PESLACKWELL | llJustice, Nature and the Geography of Differencefir Defina Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference David Harvey BLACKWELLCogyghe ® David Hey 1996 ‘he ght of Dai Harvey te ier aah his wor as been ase nacre with the Coprghe Dep Pn ho 1988 ine puis 1996 PAGE WoT S54 Bled Pi T 258 Main Ss Cenbsige, Mamehuvens 2142 Usk ‘Baal Plies ad 108 Comey Rot Oded Ox JE UK Alig ened, epithe gaeen of snp de pps af i seen 0g ha pblion ay ees i er pon one {many feo: by any means, caxnc man, papyeg ing ore ‘hou the pie pean of aloes ‘acy in she Unie Sas of Arercatisbeok i eubpectthevo dht eal e byway af ere a other, be lat, soa he oun, here oct who tbe Pls ro coses n any fem oF iding ox ce es than hat nh hed ‘al without a imi condon icading dn crn ting inn on he amen palser ow of Conn Can i Pablo Dato sry, Daiy 1935 Jers mu, a th ear iencsDavl Hares a Inching enc sd nds ISBN 1.557480 al. pp) — ISBN 19578681. ph ale pope) 1 Ss vie. 2. Socal change, 3 Sod alae 4 Gla avon cane 5, Cale lien 6, Spe ad tie. Tie ENatGHaG 188 aoas7 aa 96961 ‘ce But ilo Ceging nPuon Dat [AGH case ress thi bo vile on she Bish Liney Type 1 on pe Gated Pad in Gest Bein by HarnalsLinio, Bods, aral "This book's peed om ai Fe paper PARTI PART I PART IIE 9 10 "1 PARTIV 2 B “i Contents Thoughts for a Prologue Acknowledgments Inteoduction ORIENTATIONS Militant Parcicularism and Global Ambition Dialostice The Lebnizian Conecit ‘The Dialesicsof-Dise 1 Change a Tatorieal Agency and the Loci of So THE NATURE OF ENVIRONMENT Pare I Prologne « ‘The Domination of Navate sad is Discontents Valuing Nature = Goines ¢ 8) elbd ‘The Dialectes of Social and Environmental Change SPACE, TIME, AND PLACE Part III Prologue ‘The Social Construction of Space and Time ‘The Currency of Space-Time From Space to Place and Back Again JUSTICE, DIFFERENCE, AND POLITICS Pare IV Prologue ‘Class Relations, Social Justice, and the Political Geography of Difference ‘The Environment of Justice Possible Urban Worlds » 46 9 7 96 ny 120 150 176 207 21D 248, 291 329 234 366 403vi Contents "Thoughts for an Bologue 89 Bibliography 0 Thoughts for a Prologue Index 456 Here is « map of us country: haere i che Sea of Indifference, glazed with salt This is che haunted river flowing from brow to groin wwe dare nor taste its water "This ie the desere where missles ae planted like corms “This is the breadbasket of foreclosed farms This isthe birchplace of the rockabilly boy This i the cemetery ofthe poor who died for democracy hiss 2 baulefcld from a nineteenth-century war the shrine is famous ‘This is the sea-rown of myth and story when the fishing fleets ‘went bankrupt ete is where the jobs were on the pier processing frozen fshsicks hourly wages and no shares ‘These are other battleelds Centralia Dewroit haere are the forests primeval che copper the silver lodes “These are the suburbs of acquiescence silence rising famelike from the stroets This isthe capital of money and dolor whose spires flare up through air inversions whase bridges are crumbling, whose childzen ate difting blind alleys pene Decween coiled ras of rarar wire T promised o show you « map you say bur dis is 2 mural then yes le itbe these ate small distinct ‘where do we see it from isthe question Adsienne Rich An Alas of he Difficude World‘Acknowledgments ‘The lines ftom “An Atlas of the Difficult World,” from An Alar ofthe Difficult World: Prems 1988-1991 by Adrienne Rich. Copyright © 1991 by Adrienne Rich. Reprinted with petmision of the anthor and W.W. Norcon & Company, Tne Introduction In recent years I have frequently found myself speaking at conferences on “globalization.” The coafereace at Duke University in November, 1994, was by fir the most interesting, le brought together diverse people not only from ‘many disciplines and walls of life but also ftom many eiferent counties. Tt wwasa weloome change to fisten vo academies, activists, and representatives from Tike South Korea, China, India, Russa, and Feypt as ‘opposed to the rather repetitive and sterile discussions of globalization (increasingly dubbed by cynics “globaloney") thar all oo often occur in universe setxings inthe United States or Europe. But the atmosphere ofthe conference was frequently tense and arguments offen hard to follow, illistrative of the inroads chat hyperciical currents of choughe like porisructuraism, postmodernism, deconstruction, and the lke have made Uroughout the world, ‘But what erly rendeced he occasion memorable for me was my say in the ‘Omi Hloel in Dusham, Norch Carolina. The hotel was fll of fails of 8 very distincrive sor. The men wore either slightly baggy suits or blazes and flannels, ssually embellished with a jolly necktie. The children were remarkably well behaved, the hoys typically dressed in blazers and flannels and the gies for che most parti filly dreses. And the women all wore ankle-length dresses and, mose distinctive of dll, had long baie. the only petmisible deviation apparently being to loop it up into a bun. This was definitely noc Levi, Calvin Klein of even Beneton territory though Laura Ashley could have made i) ~ nota pai of jeans in sight, And everyone was remaskably friendly, bestowing, beaming ‘hellos” and “good-days’ to obvious deviants from thesartoral norm such as myself 1 vas curious enough follow eis distinctive crowd whither ic was headed and soon found myself in che midst of the Southeastem Regional Mecting of Evangelical Peneeostal Preachers. I was intrigued enovgt wo stay. An evening, of pariipanc observation taught me a lot. I could aot help contrasting, for crample, the incredible enthusiasm, oy, and vigor of the Pentecostal meeting2 Sanroduesion with the angsc and compedcive tension a he globalization conference. While the Pentecostal meeting was very much led ftom the front by white male preachers (no concern hers to balance the program according to criteria of fender or race), che levels and degree of enthusiastic audience participation ‘were extraordinarily high, compared tothe heard-it-all-hefae incredulity and reseniful pusivty of the campus audience. Furthermore forthe Pentecostal iewas an orchestration of emotions and passions rather than of intellect eat was being sought and the ends and objectives of the orchestration were clear. wondered what the parallel objecrive of the globalization conference might bbe. [had a hard time finding any song or coherent answer ta thae question, The preacher who opened the ceremonies that evening did sa with the following invocation. “Through these four days,” he said, "we have come t0 tundetstand the foundational belief dhat keep us firmly on the rock,” Foundational belief! | wondesed what on earth would happen if started to talk about foundational belief in the globalization conference. The decon- structionists would gp ro work wit iy precision, che rlacivsts would callously sncet the ritical cheorsts would rub their hands and say “this simply will not do” and the pomodernists would exclaim “what a dinosaur” And I myself agree that all foundational beliefs should be scrutinized and questioned, But ‘hac coubled me was the thought thae when a politcal group armed wich ssrong and unambiguous foundational belie confronts a bunch of doubting “Thomases whose only foundational ble is skepticism towards all foundational bacliefs, chen i isracher easy 0 predice who will win, Which led me to the following reflection: the task of critical analysis is not, surely, to prove the impossibility of foundational beliefs (or truths), but co find a more plausible and adequate bass forthe foundational belief chat make interpretation and political action meaningful, eeative, and possible Im this boo, I ery to define a sec of workable foundational concepts for tund=rveanding space-time, place, and environment (name). The eriial search for such foundational concept is, of course, no trivial or easy task, It requires nothing shore of establishing 4 metaphysical basis for enquiry. But it is dangerous in academia these deys to confess to heing meta about anything, for to do so is ro suggest a longing for something myrtcally outside of us (ot Sometimes within us) which we can appeal co stabilize the food of chaotic images, ephemeral representations, contorted positionings, and multiple fragmentations of knowledge within. which we now have out callctie being, [But metaphysics in its traditionel sense is precisely about the kind of critical ‘enquiry that allows fr che free interplay of passions, emotions, rationality, and intellect rather than their esticive corapartmnentalizations. That balance is not always easy co strike. If, for example, the Pencecostals were unduly high ‘on charged emotions and the collective orchestration of passions and desires for highly restrictive ends, chen we academics surely er in being far too highly captivated by the cerebral and highly disciplined (in every sense, both posivive Inraduction 3 and negative, ofthat word) qualities of our own individualistic, profesional deknod,fraginented, and often egcisicaly driven enterprises. Metaphysics ac its best alo socks general principles to understand but never repres the evident complexity of physical, biological, and social life. Enquiry ofthis sort is never easy going and during the writing of cis book I have often found myself longing for the easy simplices ofuth of the Penteosals the ceriudes oF positivism or the absolutes of dogmatic Marxism. "As the evening with the Pentecostal wore on, it became evident tha these was a very pardcalar political target for the occasion. And that get was racism, The blood of Jers, i was suid, ill wash aveay all sins of racial Ginn Rai icimiation win the church ws conse ier to the expansion ofits powers and in che nist of extaordinary scenes preacher ker preacher exhorel the asebled ito eb the lack been ‘wth joy, hui, and understanding. Aad so ic was that an audience that in the contest ofthe US south would be tadtionallychoughe hose ro rail integration came to embrace (on the surface ac leat) not only che black brethren present bi ako the ideal of racial equality inthe eyes of the church and ofthe Lord. Now Lbappen to bein favor of alos anything that mitigates the destructive, degrading, and debilitating practices of racism inthe United Sates and it certainly seemed to me that more may have been accomplished ce tat even ene ong of Ress preching han ve decade of lipscevice paid in my own university to ideals of afimatve action. There ws, faoeves hitch vl hay appari. wo reside somewhere andthe enunciation of the tatorous Jes, the madres of Jesus Christ, hovered over the Pentecostal proceedings making me wonder how much the polis of the ‘cccation was alto dominated by an attempt to wean away aetual or potential ‘Alican~American supporters of Fusakhaa’s "Nation of Mm.” ‘On my way out of the necting | found myself confronted not only with a whole baery of preachers dying 0 tell me what appalling sinners shey once Tad been and how wondrous i was to cedscover the ways ofthe Lor, but a set of booth selling everything from religious icono and books to T-shirts. pprticular Tshirt cought my eye and I could not resis buying it. Produced by Righiows Wear, « Jens Christ Centred Company it proclaimed in starting colors GET RIGHT OR GET LEFT Deconstructionists could have a fied day with that ene, I thought. Authority forthe logo-was located, however, in Ecclesiastes 10:2 and Matthew 25:33-4 icing in the Omni Hotel, | had instant aocess to Gideors Bible and, on repairing to my wom, I checked the two citations. Fclesastes merely stated ‘har God placed wisdom on His right hand an feolisness on His et. I diate rind that since being ofthe polis eft Ihave long recognized tha it eakes4 Ineraduction 4 litle foolishness to change anything. Bue the passage from Matthew was ‘much more bothersome. God separates the nations as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, And the sheep were placed on His right hand from whence they inherited the kingdora and che goats were laced om His let hand and condemned to “the eternal ire prepared forthe devil and his angels” Now ic is 2 sanding joke among many of his fiends chat God is nov a leftist sympathize, but condemnation to such total damnation seemed a bie too much, So why, exacly, were the goats oondet ven is cha: ned to the exernal fre? ‘The reason ‘was hungry and you gave me no food Iwas tiny and you gave me no dik, Twas 2 suanger and you did aot wriceme me, aaked an you cid noe cle ‘me, sick o in piso and you did ‘The goats protest that they did not see Him hungey, thirsty, adked, sick, or in prison. God notes chat Uiey have met such peopl all around ther on 2 daly basis and says “ifyou did ie not to the least ofthese, you did it not to me.” Now these happen «o be rather old-fashioned, cradivional, and, dare I say it, “foundational” values fora socialist polities. Se what has happened to chose concerns? Why was there so ite tee up on such questions in dhe globalization conference? And how come the religious “tight” now claims these concerns as their own? On this last point I immediately hada provocative thought. If God is located somewhere in space then maybe what appeais to be on His left is actually to out right! This turas out to be a far from trivial point: Leibniz, ‘hose ideas I will often invoke (particulasly in chapter 10), contested Newton's theories of absolute space and time and insisted upon a relational theory of space-time on the theological grounds that the absolute theory diminished God's powers by malking it scem as if He was located in (rather than crestor and Lord of) space and time. Inthe Leibnizian view it would be impossible tw tall of God having.a left or right hand because God isan oranipresent power throughous the universe and not to be construed as someone who sits somewhere in space and time surveying all that happens. “What seers like an arcane seventeenth-cenniry theological controversy has 1 contemporary echo. In the current rush to provide “cognitive maps” of everything going on in art, polities, the humanities, literary, and social theory, ete. (Mapping the West European Lf, Mapping Ideology, or Locaring Calsure to cite some recent book titles), the question ofthe relative location af various political groupings, stances, ideas, and movements har become « major ‘terion of evaluation and judgnient. The disewsion unforuunately evades the problem that mapping requires « map and that maps ate typically totalizing, usually ro-dimensional, Cartesian, and very undialectical devices with which itis possible ro propound any mixture of extraordinary insights and monstrous Introduction 5 lies Mathematicians (ike Bulerand Gaus) long 2go proved, for example, that icis imposible to map even the spherical surface ofthe earth on a fa piece of paper without distortion, and the history of map projections finluding those of topological varie) indieate an init of possible mapping systems snakingt possible to transform leit right o- bo into nowhere, depending ‘upon the particular projection chosen. This isnot to say that maps ae useless ~ far from i (an shall fequcndy appeal to them in what follows). But the mappi subsumes (and sometimes obscures} the problematies of an often unquestioned chee to employ one particular projecion (and 1 deibertely use the term in borh its mathematial and Poychological xenic) rather than some other. For myself I think the whole thetoric of lft versus ight (eadical versus reactionary, progresive versus conservative; revolutionary verus counterevolucionary) is less than helpfil these days since all sore of diffrent meanings are being assigned to chose ems (often depending upon dhe unspecified map deployed). IFT generally reo ‘what follows tothe binary of peo- or anti-capicalst (socialist) then iis partly ‘our of an urge to come up with somewhat clearer tesms of discussion, even though, hasten to concede, even tha binary is confused enongh. Bur wouscling out of Ged’ damning judgment through such arcane arguments (theological oF otherwise) hardly seemed the point. I needed to relict upon how che conference on globalization (myself included), ‘ostensibly ‘radical and “leftist” (Chough noc remarkably ani-apitalist) ini ‘orientation, might help vo feed che hungry, clothe the naked, minister to the sick, and generally pursue the foundational aims of socialist/anci-capialst politic. It is not sufficient, 1 concluded, to explore the metaphysical founding, the foundational belief, cha might be applied to understanding sbatrace terms as well asthe concrete politics of space, time, place, and cavironment (nature) in isolation, Such explorations should simultaneously pure a poliscal commitment feed, nourish, clothe and sustain che hungry | the poos nd she weal Conezms about socal justice (and how to understind snd operationalize foundational beliefs about that contested term) thereby \incerewine withthe question of how to understand foundational geographical {concepts At the intersection of all these arguments lies the question of the just _bradction of ust graphical dfeences We ned eiial ways ro eink about {how differences in wvologia, cultutal, economic, political, and social |condiions get productd (particularly through those homan activities that we [ax ina position in prtsipl to mily or contol) and we also need ways to Jevaluate tie juscclinjusice ofthe diference 0 produced, While ike most | socials, [havea cena ataclanent ro the principle of equal for example, this plainly cannot mean the erasure ofall forms of geographical difereace (ven presuming such erasure would be feasible ia a world that includes Nepal. Nicaragua, Finland Maly, Saudi Arabia, nd the United Stats). lndeeds the6 Iueduction quality principle could just as easily imply the prolifration of geographical differences ofa cerrain benign sor (leading immediately to the question of how to construe what is ois not “beniga’). Uneven geographical developmen is concepe deserving of the closest elcboraion and attention. Furthermore, any hhitorica-geographical materialise worth his or he salt, must surly recognize that radically diferent socio-ecologcal circumstances imply quite different approaches to che question of what is or isnot just. The baseline argument I shal thecefore adopt ~ an argument which I suspect many will now be happy to concede ~ is that spatial and ecological differences are nor only consiuted by Wyo constnusive of wha T shall call scio-ecolagial and potivicnl-exomomic procese. This includes che dificult prospect that such processes are ‘onitiausive of che very standards of socal justice that shay be used to evaluate and modify their oen operation. Ts my foundasional aim eo provide Tale concepeual apparatus t enguireineo the justness of such rations and how the sense of justice in turn gets hiscrically and geographically constcuted. Coincidentally, T also consider this work t be an enquiry into the foundational principles for an adequst historical-geographical materialism in the Marzse edition. “A.number of general themes incerrwine in the chapters that follow. T want here to lay some ofthese ou in advance as guiding threads or sgnports, The Problem of Dialectics | try to develop a dialectical and relational approach to the general topic at hand. The nature of dialectics is often misunderstood and there are in audition, many forms of dialectics that can reasonably elaim our attention. I therefore thought it wise to set out (in chapter 2) some inital principles of dialectics (as I interpret them) as a guide to the theoretical and conceptual practice that follows. To some, of course, the very mention of the word dlalectics sounds unpromising and unduly complicated, though to others, such a5 those working in litrary theory, dialectical formulations are now so ‘commonplace as to be old hat. Resistance to this way of thinking has been :musch stronger inthe socialsciences for obvious reasons {eren laying aside the politcal implications, ic challenges standard applications of statistical methods and mathematical modeling procedures. not so much in terms of actual practices bur in terms of interpreations and meanings). ln tis eegand [find myself siding with literary theory and arguing strongly again chat very large segment of social theory and of the physical, biological, and engineering, sciences thar siss comfortably and often unquestioningly in a posiivse ot ple empiricist mode of thought and work. I would like to persuade my calleagoes in these fields that an understanding of daletics can deepen our understanding of soco-ccalagical processes in all manner of ways, withour Iruroduction 7 eaticey refuting or abandoning findings amived at by other means. Tn prtiuls, I want offer a dialectical way to emphasie relations and oral, fs opposed to isolated causal chains and innumerable fragmented and Sometimes contradictory hypotheses proven tatstcally comect atthe 0.5 per- cent level of significance. Pare of the work of the dilectician i, then, to translate and transform other bodice of knowledge accurnulated by differene structures ofeiquiry and ro show how such tansloxmatons and transbtions tre revealing of new and often intersting insights. There are, however, limits te that process leaving ares of problems and issues for which canslation isha if nc impossle. These are most clearly eviden in dhe way Fundamental understandings are derived concerning foundational concepts sues as space time, and nacure. Since I concentrate forthe most parton these foundational topics, che difference that dilesical argument and praxis makes will be very much in evidence throughout ‘The Problem of Historical Geographical Material ‘While diacstics i satvely weak implanted in the social, physical, biological, and engineering sciences, iis a fariliar mode of thought in some segments ‘of the humanities, becoming particularly powerful with the wave of philosophizing ia literary theory and the pervasive influences of Hegel, Marx, Heidegger, Derrida, and a hos of others The relational dialectics adopt has made headway, for example, in feminist theory for interesting reasons ‘According to Friedman (1995), “cultural narativesof relational positionaity” have permitted feminists to move beyond the confines of what she call "sripss ‘of denial, accusation and confession” chat ret on simple binaries and often "upon essentialist categories (., women/good: men/bed), Within a relational framework, “dents hit with «changing context, dependent upon the point ofreference” so that there are no esences of absolutes. "Wenttes are ud sites that can be understood diffeendly depending on the vantage point of their formation and function.” Istoagly suppor: this way of thinking, But here ry argument also moves gency in contr ow (recalling, pechaps, the powcr of the simple binaries of those evangelical preacher). The reduction of everything to Huxes and flows, and the consequent éemphasis upon the tansioriness of al forms and posiions has its limits. IF ‘everything thats solid is always instanancously melting into ai chen itis very hha vo accomplish anything or even sec ones mind wo do anything, Faved with that difficulty the rempration is strong 1 go back w some simple foundacional beliefs (whether these bea fetishism of the family on ee tight ‘or of something called “resistance” on the lef) and dismiss the proces-based arguments out of hand. believe such a maneuver would be fundamentally ‘wrong, But while T accept the general argumene that process, flux, and flowil 8 Ineraduction should be given a certain ontological priority in understanding the world, T also wane to insist cha eis is precisely the reason why we should pay so much, sore careful attention to what | wll ater call dhe “permanen _us.and shich we also constzuct to help solidify and giv Furthermore, while itis formally truc that everything can be reduced to flows ~ including, as A.N, Whitehead says, Cleopatce’s Needle and the Sphinx — we ae in daily practice surrounded by things, institutions, discourses, and even, states oF mind of such relative permanence and power that it would be foolish tor to acknowledge tho evident qualities, There is belcr, ascetng some sort of “dsolucon of al fixity and permanence” in ce famous "last instance” if, a fr as we human beings are concern thar lst instance { is nowhere insight. The “solid rock” of bistorical-geographical materi | here sed to say tar dialectical argumentation cannot he wnderstood a | of the concre® material conditions of che world in which we find ourselves; |and those concrete conditions are often so sc in literal concrete (at leas in ‘elation to the time and space of human action) chat we must perforce acknowledge their permanence, significance, and powcr. All of this har polccal import. Consides for example, Dewida's couraordinaryfantary in Spetor of Marx in which ivmersion inthe flows ie thought somehow to be radical and revolonary in itself The move chat makes thie posible is to separate “dalectcs" from all tangible sense of historical-geagraphical conditions aswell as fom any raatednes in a tangible and organied pois, Derrida can chen envisage a “New International without status, without ete and without name ... without patsy, without country, ‘without national communiey.” Ths i, as Esgleton (1995: 37) remarks “the ulkimate poststruccuralst fantage an opposition without anything. as distasteflly systemic or draby ‘orthodox’ as an opposition, a dssen beyond all formulable discourse, a promise which would betray itself in the ace of fulfillment, a perperual excited openess to the Mesh who had bercer not let us down by doing anything a determinate as coming,” We need not only to underand but also to cate permanence: organization, institutions, doctrines, programs formalized structures, and the ke ~in onder to change anything in any kind of meaningful or diected way ‘And iis acthispoine hac | pare company with that eave of rational dialectics tht has bocome pute idealism seca far fmer grounding to politics in che concrete historia and geographical conditions in which human action unfold. In this regard, chereore, | Gnd myself wating aginst an emerging ‘cond, grounded ix dialectical and celational waysof thinking, producing what night be clled “anew idealists i which thought and discourse ae believed Co be all chat natce in powering the hisorical geography of socio-exological and polvicsl-cconomic change Inirrducton 9 ‘The Problem of Theorizing here is a great deal of tlk these days about practices of theorizing’ and of “geting the theory right” These are concerns that [share but I hasten to ad that is not always easy to understand what is meant by theorizing and theory Teszands o season chat thee terms ake on very special meaning when [assume a dialetical(telational), historical geographical, and materialist approach to lenowledge and that thc rules of theorizing are here quite diferent from how they might be construed in, say, an analytic or positivist approach, The knowledges and theories produced by such diference means are not wholly incompatible with eich ocher. But nar ate they directly assimilable co exch cxher. The general stance I take i that a dialectical, historieal-geographical and serait theory, becase ideals with toca, paricla ion, and fixity ina certain wa, holds out the prospect of embracing many other forms of theorizing within its frame, sometimes, with only minimal loss 10 the incegrity of the oxginal (though in other instances the losses may be substantial). Tam not concerned to justify that argument here. Bu there is tne line of thoughe that is so fundamental to what follows thac ic is worth broaching in advance. “The insertion of spatial considerations into most forms of social sheorzing {dialectical and noncialectical) often sens out to be profoundly disruptive oF hhow the theory can be specifled and pot to work, Social theoretic meta- narratives (sich as those provided by Marx and Weber) usually concentrate fon processes of temporal change, keeping spatlity constant, If spatialcy typically disrupts received cheory and dominant metanarrative then those who, for whatever reason, want to disrupt them can most easly do so by invoking some sor of spataliry. Tht accounts, I suspect, forthe exraoedinary «upton of spatial meraphors in peststucruralist and postmodernist work (the work of Foucaule being quite explicit onthe point) But here, t00, [find myself a somewhat odd position For while T welcome con the one hand the explosion of interest (agin, much of tin lieray zather than socal theory) in things spatial and a proliferation of texts and arguments thac wrestle with what spaciality might be all about, it has never been my incention to use such a conceptual apparatus to attack mets-theory per se. My concern is, athe, with tying co rebuild Marsian meta-theory in such 2 way ‘8 0 incorporae an understanding of spatio-ternporality (and soco-eologcal iaous) within its fame. This has me weting epeim chose uses of spatclicy and of spatial metaphor whose sole purpose sczins to be to take unceconeilable Ahiferace, inommunieabilvy, particularity, and ineducibleindividualisn and fx then in stone, Tchas never ben my point to argue that spatility makes theory impossible: Tywant a reconstruc theory with space (end the “rcltion co nature”) clearly Integrated within cas Foundational elements. The only way c do that is10 Irsadusion ‘beorine what might be meant by “the production of spece" in particular of, ore generally, “the production of naire.” Such a project isnot withost its dlficulies (s the lengeh and intricacy of some of the argument inthis book ilustrate). But we should and, I vhink, do end up with a very different kind cf andersznding of how theory should be construed and what « "mete theory” should look lke believe i posible, on chs bass, to construct «general theory of dalecical and historical geographical materialism, ‘The Question of Values and the Nature of Justice Situating oneself in the fall lood ofall the Bucs and lows of social change ruler appeal%6 Si potinanent- st of values with WhicR. 6 animarecolecive cae welledirected-socal action suspect. This i not a new thought. Sometime ‘wards the cad ofthe second century, camped along the misty, ague plagued regions of the Danube, the Emperor Marcus Aurcios, tying vainly 0 hold bck the barbarian hordes that threatened the bores andthe permanence of the Roman Empire, wrote in his Meditations (One thing hastens into being, nother hestens out oft, Even while a thing i inthe at of coming into existence, some prt of it has aleeady ceased to be Flue and change ae forever renewing the fabri ofthe universe. Tn such runing ver, where thee is no firs foothold, what isthere foreman wo value among all the many things that ate racing pas him’? I is not hardin these times to empathize with che question. But the question cannot be evaded, not despite but because ofall the manifest insecurities and ‘volatilities inthe political economy of daily life and the parallel preoccupation in radical segments of the humanities and the arts with emphasizing (even hypostasining) the inseabilities offices and floes. Ici in tis realm of values” that conservative and religious thought has its strongest appeal, precisely because the presumption of permanence (in culture) or of ectnal truths (in religion) gives stabilicy to valucs that radical thought finds hard to acknowl ‘edge. Buc meaningful politcal action (and, for that macter, even meaningful analysis) cannot proceed without some embedded notions of value, only a determination 28 to what is ors por importane co analyze intellectually ler alone to struggle for politically Tn some forms of enquiry, of course, the distineion berween “fats” and “values” is held «o be sacrosanct. To permit values ro enter into the domain of scientific objetive enquiry, fr example, i often seen evidence and resslts and render them suspect or useless. In che dalecrical/relational views, the separation of facts and values is impossible to achieve (except by sleight of hhand or within certain strictly limited domains where ie may easonably be held Inareduction V1 ‘that values are of can be held constant). In some areas of science, as we shall se, this dalecicalfrelational view of te inevitable sion of facts and values has undergone a revival of sores, as multiple contestations have atsen over, for ‘cxample, how to interpret quantum theory. of aus” ate = i cam TS wink dees : ata ork an enimer as a ‘orang OF WSeIS CTO RIC AATSH THE read will doubiless notice, Tar example, ie "perpecal rests to considerations of money as a dominane symbol of « proces of valuation chat aes us al, Thad atone point coyed with the idea of taking ll the passages that dest wich money and assembling them ino one chapter. Bus in the end, seemed moce appropriate to le the question of money permeate the various chapets in much che same way that it permeates almost every fae of eacio-eologia,petsonal and collec ie in the wood wwe have now conscactd. The proces of money valuation is, i wanspires, Simultaneously a proces defining space, time, environment, and place and I Shall endeavor t unravel that connection in some deal ‘But money isnot the only way in which the proces of valuation can be understood. The relatively permanent configurations of values around fori gender rigion, nation, cde ideniy, humaniom, and various ideas of tmoraity and justice, indicat the existence of quite different and sometimes antagonistic process of vallation. How these diferent proceses can be teconciled isin ibelf a major topic of enguity (and nora little hemusement, as the Brangelical Pentecostal example of sling “righteous wear” dhrough a “Jesus Christ Centered. Company” ilstates). The povier of money, for ample, can be used to support other process of valation, Buti ean also tundeemine them and come into condlict with them. In what follows such onfcs wil be the ocesonal focus of attention. And if lately converge to the vale “social justice” asa central cancer ts only in pat for personal historical reasons (icallows me to revisit the terrain of my first “Marxist” work, Soria fctice andthe Ci, wzsten more than wo decades 3go}. Talo irl ine that thsi the best terrain of wahing apon which the ant-apiais sruggle can tke ts stand (ao matter whether that sige is weakly reformist 4 in the “Blairiem?” of the British Labour Party or mote revolutionary as ‘implied by the environmental justice movernen’), ‘While, thorefore, i may be tue, as hat old reprobate Lawrence Durrell once femarked, that “life consists of perpetual choosing and the perpetual ‘servation of judgement,” a political movement has to make its choice and12 Iraraduction not reserve its judgment, This was, I believe, the central difcrence bervcen the Evangelical Pencecostals and the globalization conference ~the former had no reservations of judgment whereas finding and expressing such reservations is the name of the gime in many intellectual modes of thought snd practice. All values, lke che Sphinx, will ultimately dissolve and ic is particulary hard ive the swift-flowing currents of change to sete on any particular se of core ‘als for very long, Bue we have no option eacep to articulate values and stick by them if emancipatory change is o be produced. Values inhere in socio spasal procests, furthermore, and the struggle (0 change the focmer is simultaneously a struggle to change che later (and vce vera). And cis precisely ac this point tha: the human imaginary has to be deployed to its fll force in the quest for progressive socio-ccologcal and poitical-economic change. The P ities of Possibility (One of the viruses ofa dialetical/cational approsch is that ic opens up all sorts of possibilcies that might otherwise appear foreclosed. I does so in the firs instance in the realms of thought and discouse and fo cis reason it can be the fount for all manner of Utopian schemes and fantasies (ofthe sore thax Derrida has recendy offered). But I also regan ic important, theoredcally and politically, co root che sense of chose possibilities in the mass of eonstcamis that derive from our embeddedness in nature, space-time, place and 2 particular kind of socio-ecological order (capitals) that regulate the material condi- sions of daily lif, ‘This is no remote or arcane isue, For just a the Evangelical Pentecostal preachers were building apolitical force by appeal to religious conviction to build che cty of God here on earth, 10 we find a vatity of pro-capialst political movements animated by articulation of some sot of Uopian vision, Jturn, for ceumple, to a report in the New York Times (August 23, 1995} on conference on “Cyberspace and the American Dream,” Alvin Toft, author of The Third Wave, was at important presence atthe conference. He argues that a “third wave” information-based revolution is replacing “Second wave industialism and is now in the process of forming a “civilization with its own distinctive world outlook, its own ways of dealing wih time, space, logic, and ‘awalty.” This in sels an interesting theme; but if TofBcr is tight, then the processes and rules producing historicsl-geographical diference are aso presumably undergoing a zvolusionary shift. Now it so happens that Toffler isa widdly read “postindustral” and “Ukopien”thinkec, He is also politically influential: Newt Gingrich, Republican leader of the US House of Representa- tives, has adopted Toffee as one of is “gurus” and has evolved a revolutionary rhetoric in which the dismanding of she inaieutional structures of the regulatory and welfare stats is seen a8 an imperative prclude to the liberation Intreduction 13 cipatory “third wave" forces now supposedly heramed in by the wave” industrial capicalism, The press reporin che New York Fimes continues hy sating cata new coalition of forces (from both lf and ight ofthe political spect) i organizing “to harnes the brightest mind of igh technology and use their collective brainpower to assist Mr Gingrich ashe tries to reshape the nation’s political and economic landscape in preparation forthe information revolution.” And there are many who now believe that an emancipacory revolution in political economy, in social relations, in the explorations of identity, semantic worlds, and aréstic forms is being bera out ofthe capacity tm create a “Virtual” reality in cyberspace. Gingrich wonders, furthermore, if it might be posible to distribute laptop computers to every child in America 4s solution to all socal and economic ills and a coluranist inthe Baleimore ‘Sum argues that the way out of the long-term steuctural unemployment and ‘confinement of human talents in che desolate public housing projects of the cr city is hough access to the entepreacutal posbiliies of the Internet ‘There is more than a hint of an of-criticized and, some would say, quite “vulgar” Marxist view of history in all ofthis: only liberate the contemporary “productive fores” (technologie) fiom ther socio-economic anc political chains {government regulation) and let the libertis of the market ake command, the sfgumen runs, and all will be well withthe world. Much ofthe revohitionary power and widespread appeal ofthe hegemonic pro-capitalist version ofthis Utopian argument derives, I suspect, from the beguiling simplicity of this vulgae Mansist formulation (parcculaly when articulated wich the lasty and conviction of someone like Margaret Thatches or New Gingrich, “The connection bewen this ightwing Utopian” and polite power and pacoe gnc, Ee ite ar fom dominant aunt Coen within the right) ic isa potent pro-captalist weapon with which o goto work seinat a whole array of forces chat would, inthe name of equality, justice, ot just pln political-cconomic and ecological common sei, seck ‘o carb, regulate, and diminish all the manifes excess for which capitalism js jusly infamous. The connection also highlights che dificuly of anti capitalist politics. Unable to deploy is own Utopian vision (though there are jlenty of min-ersions), anc-cpitals polities lacks the powes co animate and tobilae 4 mass movement on a global bavis. Thar was not tue of The Communist Manse, but, a6 | dhink Marx would hiznsel be the frst © appreciate, we canaoc seek the poetry of oar future in the particulas poctry of that past, however appeig it sll may be. And while ic may seem insuling wo include Deesida and Tafler in the same seatence, both provide copia “sons bur dhe lac, n pur y his simplicity, caity and sensing cootedness “in the material of the world, is proving far more effective ax changing it In siew of Manx wellknown antipathy w Utopian thinking ic may seem ‘rings to inclode im in discusion of cis sort. Buc Masx produced a cen