Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 2012, volume 30, pages 315 ^ 321

doi:10.1068/d3002int

Guest editorial

Mathematics and space

This theme issue aims to contribute to an important dialogue between mathematical
theorisations of space and social, cultural, and political theorisations of space (see
Barnes and Hannah, 2001a; 2001b; Crampton and Elden, 2006; Duffy, 2006; Saiber
and Turner, 2009). It should be added that the aim of this issue is not to explicate
mathematics, as such, but rather the relations, and limits, between mathematics and
sociospatial theory. Put differently, the main question posed in the different essays,
although in different ways, is the question of how mathematics, as a distinct cognitive
technology, can help us think differently. As pointed out by Frege, ``Thought often
leads us far beyond the imaginable without thereby depriving us of the basis for our
conclusions'' (Frege quoted in Saiber and Turner, 2009, page 596; see also Byers, 2007).
It is precisely hereöin the capacity to think differently, against common sense or
taken-for-granted notions of the worldöthat I see the greatest potential for a dialogue
between mathematics and social theory. However, it would be wrong to say that such a
dialogue has not existed before: on the contrary, as the history of the human sciences
tells us, it is apparent that the institutional divorce between the human sciences and
pure mathematics is a relatively late invention [the examples are legionösee Casey
(1998), Farinelli (1998), Grant (1981), Klein (1992), Serres (1993; 2000)öand for the
relation between the arts and mathematics see Cosgrove (1985), Damisch (1995),
Edgerton (1991), Jacob (2006)]. There are, of course, certain strands of philosophy in
which this separation never occurredöfor example, the philosophy of mathematics
or various forms of logic.
Let me now proceed with two simple observations. First, any student of the recent
history of the human sciences cannot help but be surprised by the recent rise of what is
probably the most abstract form of mathematics within debates concerning cultural
and political theory. Here I am thinking about Cantorian set theory, which to a large
degree is mediated by the work of Badiou (2005) and his interpreters. To be sure,
during the past four decades there has been a continuous importation of French theory
into departments of comparative literature, anthropology, geography, etc (Cusset,
2008). Although Badiou is in many ways part of this tradition, he is also slightly odd
within this context. Or perhaps `odd' is not the correct word, but it is interesting to
notice that Badiou's work in some ways short-circuits the famous distinction that
Foucault posits in his introduction to Canguilhem's The Normal and the Pathologicalö
namely the distinction between epistemologists and logicians, such as Cavaille© s and
Bachelard, on the one hand, and phenomenologists, such as Sartre and Merleau-Ponty,
on the other (Foucault, 1991). Badiou makes use of both traditionsöformulating a
theory of the subject and a theory of the conceptöin a way most of his contempora-
ries did not. There is also a need, pace the disproportionate impact of Badiou's version
of set theory, to provoke a debate about the different genealogies of set theory and his
claim that mathematics equals ontology [see Dominguez Ferreiros (2007) for a good
historical introduction to set theory; and Nirenberg and Nirenberg (2011) for a critique
of Badiou's use of set theory]. Admittedly, this theme issue does not provide an over-
view of the many relations that exist between mathematics and the social sciences and
humanities. What it does do, however, is hopefully to put into question an increasingly
common practice of transposing mathematical concepts and figures onto debates in
316 Guest editorial

social theory without proper acknowledgment of the dangers of such translations. This
is not to say that such movements should not take place. Rather, the argument is that
we need to be careful not to transform what are highly precise and formal concepts
into rhetorical tropes effaced of analytical poweröfor example, transforming highly
complex traditions into tropes or metaphors such as Cartesian space, Newtonian space,
Euclidian space, and topological space.
The second observation is that we have also witnessed a recent `topological' shift
within cultural, social, and political theorisations of space. The genealogy of this shift is
admittedly less straightforward öat least on the surface öthan Badiou's set-theoretical
philosophy. This is evident in, for example, Latham's enumeration of sources:
``But one of the principal attractions of topologically informed theorizations of
space ^ timeöwhether they be through reading Actor-Network Theory, Deleuze,
DeLanda, Serres, ... Strathern, or Ingold ... Law or Mols [sic] ... öis precisely the
way it places into question the very notion that we already know our basic
spatiotemporal coordinates. To engage with the topological is not so much to
`find a relief from the more fixed spatial trappings of spatial power', but to try
to find ways of breaking with these notions altogether'' (2011, page 314).
I do not want to take issue with Latham's enumeration. I do, however, find it
curious that his readings of the topological exclude, tout court, mathematics. What
we are left with here, as in many other renderings of this topological shift, is a game of
Chinese whispers in which a plethora of different and at times contradictory inter-
pretations are adopted without recourse to mathematics. This precarious mediation
becomes even more problematic if the aim of such a shift is to break with previous
conceptualisations altogether. Furthermore, any critique of these sources will necessa-
rily run up against a limit at a certain point, if the ways in which mathematical
concepts being mobilised are not taken into consideration öfor example, in Deleuze's
appropriation of Desargues's projective geometry, or in Riemannian manifolds and
Serres's readings of Leibniz or Bourbaki (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987; Serres, 1968;
1975; 1983).
These developments might nevertheless seem less strange if we view the relationship
between mathematics and the human sciences in a longer historical perspective. For
example, we need only to think of the rise of new statistical technologies during the
19th century, new forms of probability, and various civic technologies associated with
state planning, urban planning, and social planning (see Elden, 2007; Foucault, 2004;
Hannah, 2000; Netz, 2004; Porter, 1988). All these examples depend on, and are
shaped by, certain mathematical inventions and forms of ordering and reasoning.
Some of these inventions we still live with while others have been radically transformed
(see Graham, 2005; Mackenzie, 2012).
A problem that can be related to these two observations is that we have seen an
importation of pure mathematics into the theorisation of the social, the political, and
the cultural. The ambition with this editorial is to draw attention to the often perilous
and flawed translations that occur when very precise terms and concepts are transposed
onto a radically different contextöthat is, politics. There is a need to contextualise
such translations, although it is not by any means certain that this can be done through
mapping a genealogy: rather, as Serres demonstrates in his contribution to this theme
issue, the spatiotemporal model that we need is much more convoluted than what is
normally the case. Precisely because, as Serres points out, the distances in mathemat-
ical thought are topological rather than historical, the formulations and demonstrations
of Euclid are copresent with contemporary mathematics. This need to contextualise
becomes even more pressing when we begin to consider in detail the groundbreaking
changes in mathematics that have occurred since the late 19th century. It is impossible,
Guest editorial 317

as so many intellectual and cultural historians have demonstrated, to consider, for

example, Hilbert's program or the Vienna circle without at the same time considering
modernity as such, the death of god, the perceived lack of foundations, and the
ephemerality of society and everyday life. The torpedo that finally sank the ship was
indeed fired from within this milieu in the form of Go«del's undecidable propositions
and the `incompleteness of mathematics' (see, for example, Janik and Toulmin, 1973;
Lachtermann, 1989; Schorske, 1981)
One trajectory and historiography will lead back to what Badiou has described as
the gap or distinction between Aristotelian logics and Platonist mathematics (see
Plotnitsky, 2012). Another trajectory, perhaps more relevant for our present concerns,
will take the work of Euler as its starting point and, particularly, his classical paper on
the bridges of Ko«nigsberg, in which he develops what is known as graph theoryöin
some ways a precursor of topology. This second genealogy connects the work of Euler
with that of subsequent geometers and topologists such as Klein, Mo«bius, and Riemann.
I argue that we need to develop a much better understanding of the reinvention of the
geometrical, expressed in this second trajectory of thought, if we want to acknowledge
the topological elements of space in all its richness. As already stated, the aim of this
theme issue is not to provide a single perspective on the relation between mathematics
and spatial thought and practice. Instead, I see its potential as providing a set of
diverse perspectives that will highlight the complexity and richness of the relation
between mathematics and spatial thought.
If, as Serres tells us, the history of mathematics is without a proper origin, what
would happen if we take this radical lack of foundation seriously? In some ways this
theme issue poses this question. In other ways it constitutes an attempt, albeit a minor
attempt, to question the recent influx into social and political theory of set-theoretical
axioms and models. More specifically, it poses the question whether or not ontology
can be anchored in mathematics. And, subsequently, what kind of mathematics can
accomplish this anchoring? This is, I argue, a crucial question. If it is not asked we will
run the risk of mistranslation. A mistranslation that is caused by an improper under-
standing of, on the one hand, an insufficient comprehension of the mathematical logics
and ontologies and, on the other, an ahistorical appreciation of the history of mathe-
matics itself. This second point is intimately connected to the numerous ways in which
mathematics always exceeds itself, not only ontologically but also practically. As
several of the papers in this issue demonstrate, contemporary mathematics constitute
a black-boxing of a multitude of social practices that regulate everyday life and taken-
for-granted notions of space and time. This has to some degree always been the case.
It can, however, be argued that mathematicity is a constituent, although often unac-
knowledged, feature of the contemporary. We need then to engage these issues in
multiple ways and not only through applying a set-theoretical approach a© la Badiou;
rather, we need to draw attention to a multitude of implicit and explicit relations
between spatial thought and mathematics. These relations will necessarily take place
within fields such as geometry, topology, and cartographic practice and theory ö
quantitative techniques within the social sciences and architecture. In short, I argue,
there is a growing need for an understanding of mathematics within the theoretical
social sciences and humanities. A theme issue on these matters is timely, given that it
can bring focus to the multiple connections between mathematics and spatial thought
and practice.
The more narrow aim of this issue is to highlight some of the ways that a transla-
tion between mathematics and space can be understood. This statement needs to be
qualified since the issue of space is, of course, central to several key branches of
mathematics and has been since the inaugurationöor inventionöof mathematics.
318 Guest editorial

What I have in mind here are, rather, the ways that a mathematisation of space takes
place within fields outside of what we may signify as mathematics proper. A designa-
tion that, admittedly, becomes highly problematic when viewed in an historical light.
More precisely, the question that I find at the same time fascinating and potentially
deeply problematic is what takes place when mathematical concepts are translated out
of the fields in which they are invented. Or perhaps this question is incorrectly
formulated. There is, to be certain, a mathematisation of the everyday ösomething
which might be called a mathematical unconscious. I am here thinking of every-
thing from computational technologies ranging from GIS to finance along with
everything from architecture to statistics. In the social sciences in general and in
geography in particular there is a certain imprecision concerning the ways that
mathematical concepts and axioms are used. Nuances get lost orö worse örepressed.
The examples are too many to mention. A good illustration of how this problematic
can be addressed is, however, provided in a recent debate on the `topological twist' in
Dialogues of Human Geography. In his commentary to Allen's paper Elden draws
attention to the need to historicise. He also poses the question of what kind of
mathematics for what kind of social/political/cultural theory. There obviously cannot
be a definite answer to such a question, one must repose it at the constitution of every
new translation: in Elden's (2011) words, ``to allow the object of analysis to dictate the
way in'' (page 306). Put differently, not everything is topological.
The limits and scope of this theme issue do not exhaust these concerns. But if the
issue can in any way contribute to opening up a debate regarding the mathematical
genealogies we, as social theoreticians, import and ascribe explanatory power too, it has
accomplished something important. I envisage that these connections will take place
both in relation to what we might call a mathematical engineering and production of
spaceöfor example, computer-generated spaces, architectural spaces, and cartographic
representations öas well as in relation to the history of mathematics that has placed the
problematic of space at its centreöfor example, geometry, projective geometry, alge-
braic geometry, and topology. Expressed differently, I see this theme issue constituting
an argument for the need to map the multitude of connections between mathematics as
scientific, social, practical, and philosophical history and at the same time to explicate
the ways that this history has been affected by and can affect the human sciences.
Now it only remains for me to introduce the four papers of this theme issue. The
papers are ordered in a way that is neither chronological nor thematic. Rather, given
the comment made above regarding the way that mathematics can help us think
differently, I have chosen to open and conclude the issue with the two most abstract
papers, those by Meillassoux and Serres. This is not to say the papers by Mackenzie
and Plotnitsky are less abstract per se. They are, however, closer readings of particular
material: databases in the case of Mackenzie and the topos theory of Grothendieck
in Plotnitsky's paper. The first paper is ``The contingency of the laws of nature'' by
Meillassoux. In it he tackles what is called `Hume's problem', formulated as the
question, ``Is it possible to prove that, in the future, the same effects will follow from
the same causes, all other things being equal, ceteris paribus?'' (Meillassoux, 2012,
page 322). Hume responds that there is no way of knowing that what holds under
present circumstances will not be different tomorrow. This, of course, holds far-reaching
consequences. Meillassoux goes on to demonstrate that what is being challenged
in Hume's skepticism, beside the question of casual necessity, is Leibniz's so-called
principle of sufficient reason, according to which ``everything must have a reason to be
as it is rather than otherwise. But what Hume tells us is that such a reason is
inaccessible to thought öfor since we are unable to establish that laws must remain
as they are, we cannot establish the necessity of any fact'' (Meillassoux, 2012, page 324)
Guest editorial 319

The problem for Meillassoux is one of allowing for a nontotalisation of the possible
other worlds that could be but are not. He goes on to question the very notion of
aleatory change dependent on time as process or becoming. At the centre of this
argument lies what he sees as the presupposition of a numerical totality that can be
calculated. For Meillassoux it is precisely the advent of set theory that allows us to
question this presupposition since Cantor demonstrated that we cannot presuppose the
possibility of a totality. Rather, for Meillassoux it is the detotalisation of number that is
expressed in Cantor's concept of the transfinite that offers us a possible way out of
Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason and an answer to Hume's problem.
The second paper, ``More parts than elements: how databases multiply'', by
Mackenzie is closely connected to the issues raised by Meillassoux. At the centre of
the paper lies the issue of how the multiple is created and changed within the archi-
tecture of vertical and relational databases. This raises the question of how new forms
of databases effectively have created new ways of ordering, sorting, counting, and calcu-
lating based on set-theoretical principles. Mackenzie argues that these new and emerging
forms of databases require us to investigate `the concrete life of abstractions' (2012).
Expressed differently, the promulgation of these forms of databases is rewriting the
ways that the social is constituted around set-theoretical categories.
The third paper, ``Experimenting with ontologies: sets, spaces, and topoi, with Badiou
and Grothendieck'', by Plotnitsky offers a close reading and a critique of Badiou's inte-
gration of topos theory developed by Grothendieck in the 1960s. Plotnitsky's aim is to
simultaneously explore the ontology and logic of the irreducibly multiple in set and
topos theory. Of interest here for him are the different interpretations on topos theory
offered by both Badiou and Grothendieck. For Badiou topos theory is a form of
mathematised logic, whereas in its original gestation Grothendieck formulated it as
ontological. At the centre of this paper lies an attempt to restore topos theory to
mathematics as thought and to reconnect it with ontology. Plotnitsky further argues
that such an understanding of topos theory would offer us a more radical concept of the
multiple than Badiou's set-theoretical ontology.
In the fourth, and final, paper, ``Differences: chaos in the history of the sciences'',
Serres in some ways breaks off from the themes of the other papersöthough only in
some ways. In other ways he poses a question that is very similar to those posed by the
other authors. The question that vexes Serres is one of foundations or, perhaps,
the lack of foundations. Put differently, how can one write the history of mathematics?
For Serres this problem is necessarily connected with the science of history itself.
What are the models that we use when we attempt to understand the translation of
mathematical traditions? For Serres there exists öor seems to existöa structural
similitude between mathematics itself and the form or model of historiography
required to write its history. Ancient, even archaic, models of thought are filtered
through the contemporary tradition, allowing, for example, Hilbert to enter into
communication with Euclid directly in the formulation of the Euclid ^ Hilbert interval.
Those familiar with Serres's work will recognise the model of demonstration at work
here. It is that of structural analysis that Serres has taken from Bourbaki (see, for
example, Cartier, 2001; Corry, 1992).
Acknowledgements. Let me begin to express my gratitude to Taylor Adkins and Robin Mackay for
their translations. Sara Westin, Peter Gratton, and Stuart Elden for comments on this introduction.
Finally, none of this would have been possible without the guidance and patience of Stuart Elden.
Christian Abrahamsson
Department of Human Geography, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
e-mail: christian.abrahamsson@keg.lu.se
320 Guest editorial

References
Badiou A, 2005 Being and Event (Continuum, London)
Barnes T, Hannah M (Eds), 2001a, ``The place of numbers: histories, geographies, and theories
of quantification, part 1'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19 379 ^ 459
Barnes T, Hannah M (Eds), 2001b, ``The place of numbers: histories, geographies, and theories
of quantification, part 2'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 19 505 ^ 572
Byers W, 2007 How Mathematicians Think: Using Ambiguity, Contradiction, and Paradox to Create
Mathematics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
Cartier P, 2001,``A mad day's work: from Grothendieck to Connes and Kontsevich. The evolution of
concepts of space and symmetry'' Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 38 389 ^ 408
Casey E, 1998 The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History (University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA)
Corry L, 1992,``Nicolas Bourbaki and the concept of mathematical structure'' Synthese 92 315 ^ 348
Cosgrove D, 1985, ``Prospect, perspective and the evolution of the landscape idea'' Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 10 45 ^ 62
Crampton J, Elden S, 2006, ``Space, politics, calculation: an introduction'' Social and Cultural
Geography 7 681 ^ 685
Cusset F, 2008 French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, and Co. Transformed the Intellectual
Life of the United States (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
Damisch H, 1995 The Origin of Perspective (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
Deleuze G, Guattari F, 1987 A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
Dominguez Ferreiros J, 2007 Labyrinth of Thought: A History of Set Theory and Its Role in Modern
Mathematics (Birkha«user, Basel)
Duffy S (Ed.), 2006 Virtual Mathematics: The Logics of Difference (Clinamen Press, Manchester)
Edgerton S, 1991 The Heritage of Giotto's Geometry: Art and Science of the Eve of the Scientific
Revolution (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY)
Elden S, 2007, ``Governmentality, calculation, territory'' Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 25 562 ^ 580
Elden S, 2011, ``What's shifting'' Dialogues in Human Geography 1 304 ^ 307
Farinelli F, 1998, ``Did Anaximander ever say (or write) any words? The nature of cartographical
reason'' Ethics, Place and Environment 1 135 ^ 144
Foucault M, 1991, ``Introduction'', in The Normal and the Pathological by G Canguilhem (Zone
Books, New York) pp 7 ^ 24
Foucault M, 2004 Sëcuritë, Territoire, Population: Cours au Colle©ge de France (1977 ^ 1978)
Ed. M Senellart (Gallimard, Paris)
Graham S, 2005, ``Software sorted geographies'' Progress in Human Geography 29 562 ^ 580
Grant E, 1981 Much Ado About Nothing: Theories of Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to
the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge university Press, Cambridge)
Hannah M G, 2000 Governmentality and the Mastery of Territory in Nineteenth-century America
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Jacob C, 2006 The Sovereign Map: Theoretical Approaches in Cartography Throughout History
(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
Janik A, Toulmin S, 1973 Wittgenstein's Vienna (Simon and Schuster, New York)
Klein J, 1992 Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra (Dover, New York)
Lachtermann D R, 1989 The Ethics of Geometry: A Genealogy of Modernity (Routledge, New York)
Latham A, 2011, ``Topologies and the multiplicities of space ^ time'' Dialogues in Human Geography
1 312 ^ 315
Mackenzie A, 2012, ``More parts than elements: how databases multiply'' Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 30 335 ^ 350
Meillassoux Q, 2012, ``The contingency of the laws of nature'' Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 30 322 ^ 334
Netz R, 2004 Barbed Wire: An Ecology of Modernity (Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT)
Nirenberg R, Nirenberg D, 2011, ``Badiou's number: a critique of mathematics as ontology''
Critical Inquiry 37 583 ^ 614
Plotnitsky A, 2012, ``Experimenting with ontologies: sets, spaces, and topoi with Badiou and
Grothendieck'' Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30 351 ^ 368
Porter T, 1988 The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820 ^ 1900 (Princeton University Press, Princeton,
NJ)
Guest editorial 321

Saiber A, Turner H S, 2009,``Mathematics and the imagination: a brief introduction'' Configurations

17 1 ^ 18
Schorske C, 1981 Fin-de-sie©cle Vienna, Politics and Culture (Vintage, New York)
Serres M, 1968 Le Syste©me de Leibniz et ses Mode©les Mathëmatiques (PUF, Paris)
Serres M, 1975, ``Peter ^ Stephen isomorphisms'' Diacritics 5(3) 39 ^ 48
Serres M, 1983 Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
MD)
Serres M, 1993, ``Anaximander: a founding name in history'' SubStance 22 266 ^ 273
Serres M, 2000 The Birth of Physics (Clinamen Press, Manchester)

ß 2012 Pion Ltd and its Licensors