Henning Fuller & Nadine Marquardt

One Step Back to See the Whole Picture:

Conceiving Governance as Power Relations

Recent years have seen a new level of concern with what has prominently been called
the "postmodern city". The city is not only of growing importance - today half of the
world 's population inhabits a city - but also undergoing profound changes. Economi­
cally, the metropolis is not only structured by industrial production but increasingly by
the service industries and knowledge-based economies. Socially, the patterns of segre­
gation are changing and becoming more intense; public space in the city is devaluated
and privatized. According to many scholars the new urban social order seems to be
highly conflicting and self-contradictory: populations are socially and culrurally heter­
ogeneous, polarized politically and economically. The conciliation of this tension has
always been a problem for the city. In the face of growing polarization the shape of
the city increasingly advances social separation. Today "even [ ... ] the poorest are con­
signed to carceral cities; whose built environment, reflective of these processes, con­
sists of edge cities, privatopias, and the like" (Dear & Flusty 1998, 59).
On the political level, there is a declining faith in comprehensive urban planning;
decision-making is done more and more involving the private sector. A postmodern
urban condition seems to be evolving which is more differentiated, more complex and
di fferently managed: "As the city grows in size and, more importantly, as it adds in
new entities, so its circulation becomes more complex, and so practices need to be in­
vented to cope with the complexity of the ullcertainty that is induced" (Amin & Thrift
2002, 94).
How can we understand this postmodern urban condition? One characteristic of
the current city seems to be a new process of policy fOll11ation. The discussion of new
forms of governance in metropolitan areas is one of the most popular ways to frame
research that is concerned with urban phenomena. As it has been noticed not only on
the regional scale of a single city, but on the national and even global scale as well, the
formation of policy nowadays is the outcome of a much more complex process than
before. To understand how contemporary society is governed, it just is not promising
to look solely on the state. lftrying to understand how cities are governed and how de­
cision-making is working at local level, the most precise framework to apply seems to
he th\.: concept t)f urban governance.
1'1 Ilbably needless to say, different forms of governing beyond the state are not
'nlildy Ill; W (Somerville 20U5). But with the recent growth in number and relevance
94 Henning Fuller & Nadine Marquard!
the perception not just of a quantitative but also of a qualitative change seems to be
justified. There is some evidence of a new mode of governing not only on the urban
scale. But as we are going to argue in the following, there are alternative approaches
to explain the phenomenon of governing on the urban scale besides trying to clarify
new modes of governing to the detail. The aim of this chapter is to argue for a power­
centered approach towards the phenomenon of governing the city. The basic idea is
that - at the end of the day - what governance is about are relations of power. While
this makes no sense as long as we stick to a very simple understanding of power (ac­
tors are wielding threatening resources to get others to do what they want them to)
more nuanced concepts of power insist on the relevance of temporarily fixed systems
of relations for describing the phenomenon of contemporary government. Analyzing
the phenomenon of governing the city by the aid of the toolset of power theory - In­
stead of the extensively applied governance theory - provides us with a broader and at
the same time more differentiated understanding and helps to establish a critical dis­
tance.
In the first theoretical part, we draw on the debate concerning the limits of the ur­
ban governance theory, which is already under way. We argue that shifting to an ap­
proach based on foucauldian concepts of power can overcome certain limits inscribed
into governance and line out why the effort to approach urban governance from a
power-informed perspective necessarily implies more than just jumping to a different
conceptual language while sticking to the same phenomenon.
After this characterization of the much traveled road of understanding how a city
is governed by analyzing a multi-actor governance-setting, the main part of the chap­
ter consists in arguing for a different approach. Even if recent works in the field of
governance do take into account many aspects of power, post-structuralist thinking is
pointing at, for example the powerful character of the established social order for ex­
ample, we see the importance to start over from a different viewpoint. I
We believe it to be insightful to follow the diagonal approach to society Michel
Foucault provided us with in his works and then be especially aware of the spatial di­
mension of social relations. This opens up a different understanding of the workings
of power in a city.
"There may well have come the point when: a further ex lens ion of' th e paractigm r01' gllv­
emanceJ would be dysfunctional, and we rna ,. \v iln,;ss th~ ,;mergcllcc or- on :tilol;tl.!lhcr new
Ik ld" (Mayntl. 2001 , 3R).
On e Step Back !o See th e Wh ole Picture. Conceiving Governance as Power Relations ()
Analyzing the city from the governance perspective
Contemporary research that tries to comprehend the complexity and the dynami(';H( d '
urban politics frequently does so by diagnosing a shift from government to govurn­
ance . This suggests an alternation from centralized governing styles to a plurality of'
agencies and authorities where public and private actors intermingle and govemiJ1 ~
mechanisms do not derive from the authority and sanctions of fonnal governnH.:nl. A
look at the literature concerned with these new modes of decision-making shows tho I
the use of the tenn governance as a tool of analysis is - while exceptionally popular
- hardly definite.
Explicitly avoiding the telln governing, governance is used to make bold that there
are new and specifically heterarchical methods society is governed by today. But (I S
soon as we leave this least common denominator there is a wide range of different
processes heterarchical modes of steering may consist of. Different scholars stress di f­
ferent aspects e .g. the networked-like anangements (Rhodes 1997), horizontal f()rms
of authority (Rosenau 2004) or the involvement of private actors (Budaus 2004). 2
As it becomes clear even on a specific scalar level like local or urban goverl1(\O(.;c,
the concept is rather inconsistent. Anyhow, the different approaches do share at least
two common traits: Firstly, they privilege the effects of (informal) anangements and
stress the possibility of non-hierarchical authority (Rosenau 2004) instead of focusin g
solely on the institutionalized and authorized actors (Mayntz 2004). Secondly, go v­
ernance is regarded as the most efficient mode of decision-making in a differt:ntiatl.:d
society (Jessop 2003).
Choosing to analyze how a city is governed by the very tenn "governance" ~an bl)
seen as a reaction to the observation that the formally structured processes of pol ioy
fonnation neither are the only nor the main mechanisms of governing. By emplQyili A
the term governance, the traditional actor-centered planning theory has changed sub­
stantially as Mayntz points out (2004). Very actor-oriented and state-centric al fi rs t,
little by little it became obvious in planning theory that there is more to include 1\11
an adequate understanding of the processes of decision-making. "Governan(.;c" sta nds
for an analytical focus that has been opened up for the importance of more underl y ing
fllrces like institutional settings or infonnal actor-coalitions. The broader context tho
actors are embedded in is getting more attention using the governance approach.
Some authors have coined the term meta-governance to drivc this perspc(.;tiv(.; t:VI,; II
litrther. Bob Jessop sees the "organization of self-organization" - another descript illil
2 Rhod es e.g, 11m; identified six separa te lI s es vfthe Icrm ijO VC I"I'I:II1 CC; I . [J~ the IIlillimul ~ t li lt ',
\:orpllrfl tll g UW nltlll Ce, 3. as a new pll bli<; I11l1lln l;lC IIl CII I , 4. II~ ' /I(m" IJOVC 1-II III1 GI'" S, i lil
~ . fI~
I Mlicio-c;yhcfTlcti l: syK ICIr1. (I . liS self' III [.IU ll il,illH 11elwI" k ~ (Rhod c ~ 11)')7 , 47 J'1).
96 i-lenning Fi-iller & Nadine Marquardt
of the term meta-governance - as the new function of the state in the contemporary
govemance-setting. An active meta-governance would noticeably not mean to simply
" have the last word", but to strategically do "the shaping of the context within which
heterarchies can be forged" (Jessop 1998 , 42). These shared backgrounds and stabi­
li zed orientations, expectations and rules of conduct are the conditions for an effective
functioning of governance, as Jessop and others claim (Jessop 2003, Kooiman 2003,
Somerville 2005).
]n her attempt to analyze the present institutiona l setting of policy-formation as
policy-networks, Adrienne Windhoff-Heritier di stinguishes between three different
levels network interactions are taking place upon . Besides the still existent and impor­
tant level of formal structures, she points out to the now important levels of informal
interactions and "social rule systems" (Windhoff-Heritier 1994 , 86). " The deploy­
ment of certain political strategies", she writes, "not only depends on material condi­
tions, but on ideological models and convictions" (Windhoff-Heritier 1994, 86, own
translation).
A recent strand of scholars is trying to grasp the constraining context of govern­
ance interactions by using a broad understanding of institutions. Important aspects
of governance are not only the policies and actors, but also "their perceptions , action
repertoires, policy discourses and embedded cultural assumptions" (Coaffee & Hea­
ley 2003 , 1982). Govemance can be understood best, so the proposal of the new insti­
tutionalism, if looking beyond fom1al organizations and including "the rules , norn1S
and practices which structure areas of social endeavour" (Coaffee & Healey 2003,
1982, see also Lowndes 200 I). As it is well noticed in the more conceptual or theo­
retically interested governance literature, the new modes of governing are less fonnal
but more contextual constrained and it is therefore worth the eff0l1 to take the power
of context into account.
We share the idea of extending the understanding of governing and opening it up
beyond the mechanism of the fonnalized state apparatus. But there is a constitutive
shortcoming shared by the governance approaches that leads us to argue for a change
of perspectives. Governance is linked with a problem-solving bias, as Mayntz has put
it:
" In all stages of its development, governance theory has been based o n the as­
sumption that policy development is basically concerned with the solution of societal ,
and especially sO<.:ioeconomic problems" (Mayntz 200 I, I).
This assumption implies a taken for granted of the given governance constella­
tions as the legitimate and adequate tool for solving problems. Wh at is lost hereby is
a critical distance to think about the empirically found governance constellation for
example in tenns of democratic quality. Certain blindness in respect to power/ domi­
nati on is characteristic for the governance approach (Mayntz 200 I). This affi rmati ve
One Step Back to See the Wh ole Picture.' Conceiving Governance as Power Relations 97
character is a ge neral yet often criticized shortcoming of (urban) governance literatu re
(Mayntz 2004). In the literature, the fonnal involvement of more actors is often uncri t­
ically regarded as an increased participatory and therefore more democratic mode or
governing. But exactly this assumption of democratic quality is too readil y made as a
growing number of critics argue: Governance-beyond-the-State is fundamentally Ja­
nus-faced if you look close enough (Swyngedouw 2005). The growing importance of
local political and economic arrangements is not purely promisin g in tenns o f actual
democratic quality. The increasing relevance of informal policy-coalitions can eas ily
lead to the consolidation of power-based interest intermediation. The growing pos~i­
biliti es of local participation still take place in the shadow of hierarchy which often
means an autocratic "elite technocracy" (Swyngedouw 2005). The less hi erarchic:al
decision-making processes do allow increased transparency, but this achievement is
easi ly lost as the participants in decision-making-processes often are not fonnally \l:­
gitimized and not really accountable (Papadopoulos 2003). ]n sum, governance liter­
ature is often too hastily referring to the "output-legitimacy" (colloquially put: "Who
cares for the process if the result is good for everybody?") to justify the self-admitted
lack of democratic accountability and responsiveness (Somerville 2005, 124).
Overall , the problem solving bias emerges from an understanding that believes
politics to be naturally interested in solving problems for the good of all. According
to such a view, the final objective of politics always is the creation of a " rational con­
sensus reached through appropriate procedures whose aim is to produce decisioll s
which represent an impartial standpoint equally in the interests of all" (Mouffe 2003,
110). This seems quite reasonable at first sight, but how can social inequality, <.:onflict
and antagonistic interests be properly conceptualized within s uch a framework? Lik e
some political theorists have pointed out, this perspective finally supports a very lim­
ited conception of democracy that "erases the dimension of antagonism which is ine­
radicable in politics" because it is unable to imagine the political as a "domain where
it is unavoidable that one should ration ally expect discord" ( 110).
While a certain blending off can be justified for the sake of a more pragmati~: re­
search, it definitely is misleading if one claims to judge the democratic quality of th t:
analyzed governance process. Therefore, a closer look at the new modes of govt.:l'11­
ing is necessary. The general claim we would like to point out here is that - as it rnad t.:
sense to broaden the focus away from the local state to better understand thc process
of governing on the scale of the city - a more general change of perspectives is IIcee:;­
sary to gain some critical distance and to avoid the problem solving bias and the im­
plicitly affilmati ve attitude of th e governance approach.
Even if it is definitely one of the strengths of the governance approa <.: h to Opt:11 lip
the understanding for the broad field or
subjects involved in the concrete proccsscs o f
policy formation - non-sta te actors, actor coalitions, etc. - tilL! poli cy prn CC!lS i t.~c l r rC­
mains to Ol' colln~ i vcd as dri ven by identifi,lhk slIh jects. T h cs(~ !iUhjcctN arc COIlCentl1
9R Henning FLilLer & Nadin e Marq uardt
a Iized as prior to the process and thereby remain abstracted from the power relations
at play. Like John Allen argues, the complex geography of power is already implied by
governance literature, where power is seen to flow upwards and downwards through
the different scales of economic and political activity - and yet the picture presented
still is "one of power more or less exchanged intact between scales" and the vocabu­
lary of power is still the classical one of "capabilities held'" and distributed "between
different levels ofauthorily" (Allen 2004, 22).
As political theory has shown in contrast, power can also be conceptualized in
a different way. Especially important here is the observation of the productive qual­
ity of power brought forward by authors such as Hannah Arendt or Michel Foucault.
Arendt's contribution is a profound clarification of power as a key-concept in politi­
cal theory. By systematically distinguishing between power and "force", "violence" or
"authority", Arendt highlights the unique character of power as an outcome of human
relations. Power in this concept can never be a possession. Instead, it results from the
human condition to be able to act in concert. As such, power - though always fleet­
ing and dissolvable - arises from the most genuine political action possible (Arendt
2003).
While Arendt and Foucault share a productive understanding of power, they dif­
fer in the way "the social" appears in their theories. For Foucault, the social lives of
individuals are continually subject and object to the exercise of power. The given so­
t: ial order not only wields power over the subjects but must also be considered as an
dICet of power itsel f.
To sum up, governance literature is indeed pointing to the implicit rules of the
game. But with the analytical decision to leave the presented order somewhat un­
questioned, the governance approach fails to fully understand the dynamics of power.
What is missing is a conceptual toolset able to provide a critical distance.
Understanding meta-governance
As we have seen , recent governance literature already implies the more structural as­
pects 01" policy fonnation. But to be able to get a more complete view on the forces at
pl ay, wt: have to find a way to analyze how this very contextual framework has been
esta hlished respectively is establishing itself. Not at least this is especially important to
he able to question the democratic qual ity and the possibilities of participation within
tile system of governing foulld.
Our suggestion consists of accessing the phenomenon of governing from a dif­
Ic rcllt viewpoint. By shifting to tht: cOJlceptual toolset of political power theory, the
,~t l'\l c tu ra l usrct:ts oi'I1(lli cy ji)rmation show lip in their charactcr as relational ctTccts of
power Il nd cun he 1:lkcn intn li')cu ~ . Uy escapillg tl1\': lirnitin g suppositions ol' thc g(lV-
One Step Back to See the Whole Picture: COll ceiving Governance as Power Relations 99
ernance approaches and by accessing the phenomenon of governing from a different
viewpoint, aspects of power can be focused on which otherwise fall out of sight.
An important effol1 in approaching the phenomenon of governing - especially in
the field of urban studies - can be found in a diverse body of literature finning as gov­
ernmentality studies (Rose & Miller 1992, Osborne & Rose 1998, Osborne & Rose
1999, [sin 2000). Reaching back to the theory of Michel Foucault, governmental­
ity studies have developed a nuanced conceptual toolkit to understand the sometimes
not easily visible power relations at play when interactions in society are ordered
and made mutual acceptable. Just like governance approaches, governmentality stud­
ies perceive politics as no longer operating in a straightforward top-down or centre­
out mode. Like Mitchell Dean points out, governmentality approaches are continuous
with some of the analytical frameworks (also mentioned before in this sense) that they
regard the exercise of power as "anything but self-evident and in need of considerable
analytical resources" (Dean 1999, 9) - but they do break with many of the previous as­
sumptions and offer a fundamentally different notion of power because they leave the
question of its possession in favor of a structural understanding of its conditions.
It is exactly this modification and expansion of the accustomed conceptions that
initiates a fundamental change of perspectives. Like Foucault argued, our accustomed
modes of conceiving power cannot comprehend its contemporary exercise. In contrast
to the above-mentioned conceptions of governance-processes as driven by identifia­
ble actors, Foucault entirely rejects the idea of a subject as a pre-existing entity who
sovereignly makes decisions influenced by an autonomous interest-founded agenda.
And while the subjects' actions may follow a rational process of decision-making and
creating consent, this consent is "manufactured through intricate controlling mecha­
nisms that produce nonns, constitute interests and shape behaviour" (Gordon 2002,
125). According to this, "strategy" for example is not located in actors but is the out­
come of dynamics in local settings where a microphysics of power continuously cre­
ates new relationships. The exercise of power is no longer conceived solely in negative
terms of prohibition and repression, but as a set ofrationalities that is capable to con­
stitute interests and even identities. In favor of an access to society that acknowledges
this productive capability, govemmentality studies leave the actor-centered perspec­
tive and change over to more post-structuralist pathways, where power is perceived
as being nothing outside of its effects and makes its presence shown in the social or­
der we find ourselvcs in.
An adequate appreciation of the ways in which this political power is exercised
draws attention to "the historically matrix within which are articulated all those
dreams, schemes, strategies and manoeuvres of authorities that seek to shape our be­
liefs and conduct of others in desired directions by acting upon their will, their cir­
cumstances and their environment [...] who endeavour to administer the lives of others
in th(.; light Or Cofll:eptiol1S ol'what is good, healthy, normal , vir111ous, efficient or prof­
100 Henning Fiiller & Nadine Marquardt
itable" (Rose & Miller 1992, 175). This comprehension clarifies that governance is
constitutively intertwined with activities that should be analyzed first and foremost "in
terms of their political rationalities" (Rose & Miller 1992, 175) - because even ration­
ality is constituted through power.
While governmentality studies do provide a workable example of how to approach
society equipped with the foucauldian concepts and have definitely added insight­
ful comments to the analysis of urban policies, there are also some drawbacks. As
Foucault himself explicitly avoided formulating his theory into an adaptable method
(a venture that would have been conflictive with his insistence to open up the horizon
of possibilities anyway), how to best approach society using the perspective Foucault
did provide us with remains an open question.
The main critical stance against the existing governmentality studies is the ten­
dency of being prone to generalized statements about the strategies of power. This
critique does concede that governmentality studies have evidentially been able to
work out the supposed effects of a certain technology of governing (e.g. the govern­
ing through community; Rose 2000) or the desirable behaviors subjects are confronted
with (e.g. self-responsibility; Castel 1991). But they fai I in making any claims about
the actual effects of power-relations on actual people. The search for overarching ra­
tionalities of government draws the perspective away from local counter-tendencies,
possible resistance and failings. Stenson and Watt for example have been able to dem­
onstrate that the rationality of government generally proclaimed as the "death of the
social" and the rise of the individual by the govemmentality studies is modified and
reworked significantly on the local level (Stenson & Watt 1999). Hence, the system
of power-relations is depicted as way too uni-directional within the govemmentality
studies and there is a striking silence about fractions in the workings of power. "This
theoretical silence in governmentality work persists despite abundant evidence that
contestations, resistances and social antagonisms shape rule through systematic pro­
vision of alternatives" (O'Malley, Weir & Shearing 1997,510; see also Allen 2003).
Some scholars go even further and explicitly deny the possibility of the use of govern­
mentality as a framework to apply to empirical analysis. Rather than making the claim
to depict the working of power in a concrete situation, the toolset should be used to
provoke a different thinking about society. Rather than as a tool for sociological re­
search, govenm1entality should be conceived as a guide in second order observation
(Osborne 2001).
While trying to overcome the limitations of the governance approach by changing
to the foucauldian concept of power, governrnentality studies are prone to remain on
a very general level away from everyday life in a concrete setting. Foucault sought to
direct the analysis of power towards the settings in which power actually makes itself
visible and sensible. While Governmentality approaches have expanded our perspec­
tive on urban governance especially with regard to power relations a great deal, they
One Step Back to See the Whole Picture: Conceiving Governance as Power Relations lUI
tend to conceptualize power as completely ubiquitous and thereby have to ignore till':
difference of spaces where power makes itself actually felt by "putting us in plac\!"
(Allen 2004, 19)3
Urban governance as a production of space
So after discussing and pointing out these shortcomings, what about our initial proh­
lem of understanding the phenomenon of goveming in a city?
The aim is to understand the distribution of resources and functions, the organi­
zation of decision-making in a particular city without neglecting the forceful met o­
governance prescribing much of the outcome before any arguing and bargaining has
started (as much of the govemanee literature does) and without hastily subsuming the
complex processes under a general rationality (as much of the govenmlentality litera­
ture does). In the remaining part of the chapter we would like to propose a pragmati c
solution for the concrete analysis of governing a city. A solution which could also be a
route for navigating between Scylla and Charybdis lined out before. What could pro­
vide guidance is a centering of the empirical analysis on the production of space. As
we are trying to illustrate, the phenomenon of governing a city is to a great deal in­
tertwined with the production of space. One possibility to gain an understanding or
the concrete working of power relations in the city is to start with the outcomes till; or
governing processes. The production of spaces can be seen as such an outcome. As we
would like to point out in the second step; for approaching our problem it is quite suit­
able to make this special outcome the center of analysis. Spaces are shaped and prn­
duced according to underlying rationalities. But it is also an effect of concrek spaces
that these rationalities are in tum irritated and modified.
The first reason that makes it plausible to approach the phenomenon of g ()v~ rn ­
ing pragmatically via the production of spaces is the relation of power and SP Ll (;C,
Governing a city consists to a great deal also in shaping the spaces of a city. Thi s be ­
comes clear if you consider policies that explicitly deal with the built structure th u or
city; like decisions regarding traffic infrastructure, brownfield redevelopment or hOIl H­
ing. But policies that try to improve the local economy, which are directed uguill st
3 An interesting effort driven by the same concerns with the govcrnmcntality appro;lI;h iN
currently being conducted by Justus Uitermark. He is trying to conserve th e i l1 ~ ighls in II I\,!
micro-physics of power provided by the governmental ity approac h and <I I Ihe ~ a rn" li lll!.:
avoiding its tendency of ovc r~ stimatin g the intended e nCCIS by integnlli ng 1\ regulal i(lll ilH
approach (Uitclll1ark 2005). What is problematic here ond LJitcrmark is v!.:ry well ,IWfl ll '
of Ih is - is the intcgrali ol1 or two C ()n CC rl ll ~ 1 l on lsct!4 based on cnm pl(ll el v dino renl 0 1110
logicli l clai ms aboul the origin (If power.
102 Hemling Fuller & Nadine Marquardt
unemployment or designed to improve policing also undoubtedly effect the spatial di­
mension of the city. The success of a local economy for example, depends on the rep­
resentation of a certain sector of the city as a profitable location; be it for attracting
customers or facilitating the decision to start a business. Goveming a city in a broad
sense - the conflictual process of putting things and subjects in place, providing them
with possibilities or neglecting them the right to the city - is linked to the production
of space.
To understand this powerful aspect of space it is important to acknowledge the
character of space as a social construction. Space is a necessary dimension of any ob­
ject in the social world. Be it a nation-state, a city, an affluent neighborhood or any
other institution; to come into social existence depends on localization. But as the ex­
ample of the purely political definition of a nation-state easily shows, there is no pre­
given truth or undeniable reality our imaginary geography is founded on. The spatial
aspect of social phenomena results from a process of designation. Space is a social
product as Lefebvre prominently insisted (Lefebvre 1991).
Drawing on the theoretical work on the social production of space, the political di­
mension of actually produced spaces in a city becomes clear. As we have seen space
IS an important medium in ordering society, be it a fixation of the discursive system
of truth on the one hand and the structuring of the field of possibilities on the other
hand. The production of spaces is therefore an effect of actual power relations. To fo­
cus on the production of spaces can be used as a heuristic device to understand the
flower relations behind: "Given that Foucault uses power relations to investigate so­
ril'ly, rather than the Marxist productive relationship, and that power relations are in
and through space, we can see that questions of space are inherently political" (EI­
den 2001 , 151)4
I-laving pointed out some reasons for the possibility of using the production of
space as a way of analyzing the phenomenon of governing in a city, it still has to be
4 The importance of the spatial dimension of social phenomena has generally been put for­
ward recently as different disciplines of the social sciences have become more aware of
Ih e;: .:ategory of space. In the slightly exaggerating manner of a constant need for new­
n<!ss in the academic fi eld, even a "spatial tum" has been proclaimed recently (Soja 1989,
1(96). It has eve n been claimed to understand the fundamental contradictions of our so­
cial world in terms of urbanization (the production of urban space) in addition to the usual
lurms of industrialization (the production of commodities) (Goonewardena 2005). Crucial
1111 this Ihinkillg is till: necessity to replace time with space, as the main category to ex­
pluin sncial order. This becomes explicit in this statement of Frederic Jameson: "I think
Ihul il is li t lues\ elll piricall y ~rg u <l b le that our daily life, our physic experience, our cul­
lura l l (l n fl lil1 ~e~ , lIrc Ioda y d clJll inalcd by I,;all.:g()r i \'!~ ur ~ Pll~ t.: ra th t.:r Iha n call;gori t.:s of ti me,
IHl lllllw precedin A 11cnnt1" (J II II1 CNnn , 1'1'11 , Ill ).
One Step Back 10 See the Wh ole Picture: Conceiving Governance as Power Relations 103
shown why this can be helpful to avoid the shortcomings of the governance respec­
tively governmentality approaches. With a pragmatic approach focusing on the pro­
duction of space it is possible to identify the rationalities and tIllth claims without
over-generalizing them. The production of spaces can be seen as an empirical ob­
ject shaped by the underlying narrations and rationalities as well as leading to an out­
come ~ot completely determined by these rationalities. On one hand the production of
space is inherently discursive and hereby related to the underlying rationalities often
disregarded by the governance approaches. On the other hand, the application of cer­
tain rationalities does not function flictionless. Local specifities and materialities do
intervene. The acknowledgement of these irritations in tum could be used for a cor­
rection of the tendency to over-generalize the govenunentality approaches are strug­
gling with.
In her reworking of an analytical usage of space Margaret Kohn underlines the
special quality of actual spaces as discursively formed but materially based:
"Whereas geographers had traditionally used the term to denote a purely physical
location, contemporary theorists have taken the opposite extreme and evacuated any
sense of rootedness , sometimes using the word ' space' as a synonym for discourse.
Instead, we need a mediating position that acknowledges that space is a product of
social practices but one that has particular properties precisely because of its embodi­
ment in specific types of places. Such a mediating position neither reduces space to a
purely physical category nor evacuates its material dimension" (Kohn 2003, 15).
For empirical analysis, this double dependency makes the production of space a
suitable object that bridges the conceptual deficiencies of both governance and gov­
emmentality approaches. The rationalities of how we conceive the social world are
constitutive for the way it is ordered and where things and people are (to be) placed.
The positioning of social facts not only facilitates communication but also is a neces­
sary prerequisite for communication; as it reduces an otherwise unbearable complex­
ity of the social world. But being localized in the (spatial) order of the social world
not only grants social facts their relevance and existence but also lets them appear as
naturally given. Geographical abstractions serve to reduce the range of possible un­
derstandings of the world, help to fix a certain order and to deny alternative orderings.
The production of space is inextricably involved with the construction and recon­
struction of social order. Orderings are therefore constitutive for the characteristics of
spaces - real or imaginary, material or metaphorical. The meta-govemance of the so­
cial order has central impact on the concrete spaces produced.
The critical distance brought forward by Foucault's theoretical concepts may help
to establish an analytical perspective that - even while starting on the concrete empiri­
cal level - will not fall into naturalizing the "things" found "there". In most of the gov­
ernance processes on the urban level for example, we can find numerous presentations
or"(hc lot:al" as a privileged space of authenticity and of embedded communitics. The
104 Henning Fiiller & Nadine Marquardt
"local" is considered to be a "naturahzed space of collective resistance" (Smith 200 I,
I02) against the disruptive processes of globalization. Following from this logic is a
comprehension of globalization as "a process inherently antagonistic to the sustain­
ability of local forms of social organization and meaning-making" (Smith 2001,103).
Contemporary urban politics advocating in favor of an implementation of new con­
cepts of governance rely heavily on this conception of the global-local connection.
Following the understanding of space we have discussed before, this perception of the
local as the home of natural identities and authentic communities can be traced down
analytically and then be exposed itself as a creation of neoliberal rationality and iden­
tity formation. Implicitly nornlative claims that most governance approaches share
can be put to discussion - because viewing locality as contingent challenges the the­
oretical framing of many urban governance concepts that tend to legitimize local ac­
tors and local fonns of social self-organization by essentializing them. The possibility
of second-order observation helps to understand what exactly is at stake in the very
notion of "governance" and the discursive practices surrounding the concept. Local­
ity can be envisaged as complex, contingent and as the contested outcome of gover­
lIance processes (Smith 2001).
Thc productive quality of power putting rules, nOllm and subjects into being
shows partl y up in the way spaces in the city are produced. But it is not only politi­
ca l planni ng or an overarching governmental rationality that shapes the space of the
city. This simplification is one of the shortcomings of the governmentality studies as
men tioned above. Even if they do take care of the connection of power and space, for
ex ample when they focus on housing policies (Murdoch 2000) or identify the demar­
cation of neighborhoods as technology of power (Fuller 2004), space is reduced to
lhe space of political programs and rationalities in these studies. But as Henri Lefeb­
vn; and Michel de Certeau heavily insisted, the category of space is also constituted
lhrmlgh the reproduction in everyday practices (Lefebvre 1991 and de Certeau 1988).
Although conceptualized spaces in general tend to overcode and dominate the spaces
orIived experience, they are shaped by eventually distOliing practices in the daily use
or 111 the colloquial representations as well. "Space is the seat of a practice consisting
III more than the application of concepts, a practice that also involves misapprehen­
sion, blindness, and the test of lived experience" (Lefebvre 1991, 297). Especially on
lit e urban level the over-deternlination of space can be grasped easily. The urban de­
r ends on grounding rationalities but is as well produced in everyday practices. "The
tl r blll1 is an intermediary instance that mediates the macro-dimensions and institutions
nf lh c soci al order (state and capital, patriarchy, institutionalized knowledge) (I'ordre
lui nta in) and the immediate, micro-reality of everyday life (I'ordre p roche)" (Kipfer
"002. 139) .
One Step Back to See the Whole Picture: Conceiving Governance as Power Relations 105
Contesting California Plaza
Having started this chapter with a discussion that derives from the challenges of an­
alyzing the so called post-modern city, we will now end it with an example from
Downtown Los Angeles that maybe highlights the fraction between the programmatic
concepts and their reproduction in everyday practices we've discussed above.
An often discussed object lesson for both analyzes of new forms of governance
and the neo-liberalization of urban policies alike seems to be the privatization of pub­
lic space. California Plaza in Downtown L.A. is such a place. Situated in an emerging
new downtown, the plaza reflects a profound transfornlation in urban policies where
urban renewal is driven forward by various public-private partnerships with the pro­
claimed goal to strengthen Downtown L.A.'s competitive position in a so called ec­
onomically elite global city. With its private management and restricted usages, the
plaza can be considered a classic example for privatized public space. Codes of con­
duct being installed for a "proper" use of the place by its visitors reflect the currently
dominant neoliberal discourse. They do so by reinforcing a very restrained definition
of "public" where codes of conduct "for the benefit of everyone" create an "everyone"
that turns out to be highly exclusionary to particular societal groups. In this context,
definitions of public and private become significant "in terms of use and access that in
tum [are J sedimented in the built environment, institutionalized through management,
and directed toward users through security and maintenance" (Peterson 2006, 364).
While festivities - often sponsored and organized by the Downtown Center Busi­
ness Improvement District (DCBID) - seem to be a suitable use of Califomia Plaza,
the codes of conduct strictly forbid people to hand out flyers within the area. Handing
out flyers is considered as an offence against the "public" using the park and is there­
fore forbidden due to the signs greeting the visitors at the entrances. A private secu­
rity service patrols the place looking out for such prohibited activities. Enforcement
of the codes of conduct is assured further through the installation of surveillance sys­
tems all over the place. In a chapter that discusses the neoliberal characteristics of
privatized public space, Marina Peterson mentions an interesting incident on Califor­
nia Plaza that can serve as a visualization for the ways in which conceptualized spaces
are shaped by eventually distorting practices in the daily use or in the colloquial rep­
resentations as claimed by Lefebvre and others:
"On a Friday in July 2006, representatives from the Service Employees Interna­
tional Union (SEIU) picketed in California Plaza. A small group marched around the
Plaza and handed out flyers copied on pink paper. A woman at the front of the group
used a bullhorn to announce their reasons for being there: to unionize the security
guards, [ ... J Califomia Plaza was chosen as a site for the picket because its security
force was not unionized and security guards eam only minimum wage. An older guard
who had been tryi ng to unionize the others had been transferred. He became the fig­
t1reIK:ad for th e pro lest that disrupled the ve ry order that he had helped maintain; his
106 Henning Fuller & Nadine Marquardt
picture was on the flyer, and he walked at the front of the group. A few of the Califor­
nia Plaza security guards marched WIth the group, which was comprised primarily of
lInion representatives. The security guards working that day did not stop the picket.
And while someone called the head of security, whose office was in another building
down the street, he did not come" (Peterson 2006, 384).
As Peterson points out, in this context the security guards were in opposition to ­
not in alignment with, as is programmatically assumed - the interests of the plaza's
programmatically preferred users (Peterson 2006, 384). Furthennore, the security
guards' claim was brought forward through the tactic of un-enforcement. Now while
it would be highly misleading to declare the privatized California Plaza a "natural site
for collective resistance" and maybe even furmy to consider - of all things - a private
security guards ' rally as antagonistic to the neoliberal reshaping of the city, the exam­
ple clearly shows the level of ambiguity we are confronted with. It is a rather messy
ambiguity that so far has been neglected by both governance as well as governmental­
ity studies. And even if the governmentality studies may be right to point out that the
neoliberal project stands out first and foremost because of its all encompassing char­
acter "it is in the cities and city-regions that the various contradictions and tensions of
'actually existing neoliberalism' (Brenner & Theodore) are expressed most saliently in
everyday life. It is also on this scale that one can find major attempts to manage these
contradictions and tensions in the hope of consolidating the neoliberal turn through
supplementary and/or flanking strategies and policies" (Jessop 2002, 452) .
The small example highlights that if power can be understood as the capability to
temporarily fix systems of meaning, an important part of the definition is to under­
stand that these fixations can never be entirely closed. They remain inherently chal­
lenged, and when their contradictions recur they may do so in a rather perfonnative
rnanner. Even if it is a seemingly marginal or insignificant incident like the one de­
scribed above, the possibility of contradictions and inconsistencies to arise and be­
come visible in this case was only possible in and through the production of space. It
also shows that space itself cannot be conceptualized as a static "surface"; social rela­
tions are taking place upon "because the social relations which create it are themselves
dynamic by their very nature . Moreover, and again as a result of the fact that it is con­
·cpt ual izcd as created out of social relations, space is by its very nature full of power
anti symbolism , a complex web of relations of domination and subordination, of sol­
idarity and cooperation. This aspect of space has been refelTed to elsewhere as a kind
of "power-geometry'" (Massey 1992,81).
( 'nnclusion
I) ri vc n by the e xperience of a morc interconneck:d as we ll as segregated society some
(II' the conceptual toois orthe s(ll:ial scie nces li n:: hl.: in g rc vis it l.:d recently. Especially
One Step Back to See the Whole Picture: ConceiVing Governan ce as Power Relations 107
the concept of power has been thoroughly contested as misleading or at least too nar­
row jf viewed in the usual weberian understanding. A number of indicators put for­
ward the need of a shift in our general understanding of power. This consideration
of the necessity to rework our understanding of power and social order also initiated
the conceptual shift we promoted in this chapter. If it is true as Amin and Thrift note,
"that power is now being generated through the ability to initiate and track and modu­
late flows in ways which are both more systematic and more invasive than in the past"
(Amin & Thrift 2005, 2280, then an understanding of goveming a city synonymous
with the measurable governance arrangements is too limited as we tried to make bold .
In the less certain arrangements of government that characterize contemporary poli­
tics, it is crucial to know how power exercises us and how it attempts to put us in place.
Otherwise we are as John Allen argues, in danger not only of losing sight of the me­
diated nature of power, but also of what kinds of political interventions are possible in
the circumstances that prevail (Allen 2004, 31).
What we initially need if we want to understand the current settings of power is a
"more spatial curious account of the whereabouts of government which goes beyond
talk of centrally determined outcomes or radically dispersed authority" (Allen 2004,
29). What we have been arguing for is such a spatial re-focusing of the govenmlental­
ity studies . All in all the scope of this chapter was necessarily limited to pointing out
the need for such an approach and its possible benefits. Theoretical arguments pro­
vided here aside, the fruitfulness of the approach promoted has to be proven in con­
crete empirical studies. And in the end, a political goal of any analysis influenced by
post-structuralist theory may in turn be to finally go beyond the deconstruction of
power relations at play and get engaged with the difficulties of naming and creating
alternatives.
R eferences
Allen, J. (2003): Lost geographies of power. Oxford: Blackwell.
A llen, J. (2004): The Whereabouts of Power: Politics, Government and Space. In:
Geografiska Annale'~ Series B: Human Geography, 86, I, 19-32.
Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (2002): Cities. Reimagining the urban. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (2005): What's Left? Just the Future. Antipode, 37,2, 220-38.
Budaus, D. (2004): Neue Kooperationsformen zur Erftillung offentlicher Aufgaben.
Charakterisierung, Funktionswei se und Systematisierung von Public Private Part­
nership. In: Harms, J . & Reichard , C. (eds): Die Okonomisierung des offentlichen
Sek/(),.s, Baden-Baden, 2 13 233.
108 Henning Fiiller & Nadine Marquardt
Castel, R. (1991): From Dangerousness to Risk. In: Burchell, G., Gordon , C. & Miller,
P. (eds): The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality, Chicago, 281-298.
Coaffee, 1. & Healey, P. (2003): 'My Voice: My Place': Tracking Transforn1ations in
Urban Governance. Urban Studies, 40, 10, 1979-1999.
Dean, M. (1999): Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modem Society, London.
Dear, M. & Flusty, S. (1998): Postmodern Urbanism. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 88, I, 50-72.
de Certeau, M. (1988) : Kunst des Handelns, Berlin.
Elden, S. (200 I): Mapping the present: Heidegger, Foucault and the project of a spa­
tial history, London.
Fuller, H. (2004): Fuhmng als konzertierte Aktion. Eine Anwendung des Begriffs der
Gouvernementalitat von Michel Foucault auf das Bund-Linder-Programm 'So­
ziale Stadt ' . Diplomarbeit FU Berlin, Berlin.
Goonewardena, K. (2005): The Urban Sensorium: Space, Ideology and the Aestheti­
cization of Politics. Antipode, 37, I, 46--71.
Gordon, N. (2002): On Visibility and Power: An Arendtian COITective of Foucault.
Human Studies, 25, 2, 125-145.
Isin, E.F. (2000): Governing cities without government. In: Democracy, Citizenship
and Global City, London.
Jameson, F. (1991): Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism, London,
I-54.
Jessop, B. (1998): The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of eco­
nomic development. International Social Sciences Journ al, 50, 155, 17-28.
Jessop, B. (2002): Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State-Theo­
retical Perspective. Antipode, 34,3, 451-472.
Jessop, B. (2003) : Governance and meta-governance : on reflexivity, requisite variety
and requisite irony. In: Bang, H.P. (ed): Governance as social and political com­
munication. Manchester, 101-116.
Kipfer, S (2002): Urbanization, everyday life and the survival of capitalism: Lefeb­
vre, Gramsci and the problematic of hegemony. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism,
13,2, 117-149.
Kohn, M. (2003) : Radical Space. Building the House of the People, Cornell.
Kooiman , 1. (2003): Societal Governance. In: Katenhusen, I. & Lamping, W. (eds):
/)('fl/okmtil'tI ill t:i1rOP(/, Opladen, 219· 250.
One Step Back to See th e Whole Picture: Conceiving Governance as Power Relations 109
Lefebvre, H. (1991): The Production of Space, Oxford.
Lowndes , V (200 I): Rescuing Aunt Sally: taking institutional theory serious in urban
politics. Urban Studies, 38, II, 1953-1972.
Massey, D. (1992) : Politics and space/time. New Left Review, I , 196, 65- 84.
Mayntz, R. (200 I): Zur Selektivitat der steuerungstheoretischen Perspektive. MIG
Working Papers, 01 /2.
Mayntz, R. (2003): New challenges to governance theory. In: Bang, H .P. (ed): Gover­
nance as social and political communication. Manchester, 27-40.
Mayntz, R. (2004): Governance Theory als fortentwickelte Steuerungstheorie? In:
MPIfG Working Paper. Volume 4, Berlin: Max-Planck-Institut (URL: http ://
www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg .de/pu/workpap/wp04-I/wp04-1 .html).
Mouffe, C. (2003): Which Kind of Public Space for a Democratic Habitus? In: Hillier,
1. & Rooksby, E. (cds): Habitus. A Sense ofPlace, Aldershot, 109-116.
Murdoch, J. (2000): Space against Time: Competing Rationalities in Planning for
Housing. Transa ctions ofthe Institute of British Geograph ers, 25 , 4,503 - 519.
O'Malley, P., Weir, L & Shearing, C. (1997): Governmentality, Criticism, Politics.
Economy and Society, 26,4,501-517.
Osborne, T. (2001): Techniken und SUbjekte: Von den ' Governmentality Studies' zu
den 'Studies of Governmentality'. Mitteilungen des In stituts fur Wissenschafi lind
Kunst, Demokratie, 56, 12-15.
Osborne, T. & Rose, N. (1998): Governing Cities. Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Ad­
vanced Liberalism. Working Paper Nr. 19. In: Isin, E.F., Osborne, T. & Rose, N.
(eds): Governing Cities. Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Advanced Liberalism. Work­
ing Paper N r. 19 . Toronto: Urban Studies Programme, 1-37.
Osborne, T. & Rose, N. (1999): Governing Cities: notes on the spatialisation of virtue.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17, 6, 737-760.
Papadopoulos , Y. (2003): Cooperative Forms of governance: Problems of democrali(;
accountability in complex environments. European Journal ofPolitical Rcsl.'arch,
42,473-501.
Peterson, M. (2006): Patrolling the Plaza: Privatized Public Space and the Neoliheral
State in Downtown Los Angeles. Urban Anthropology and Studies of CIIltuml
Systems and World Economic Developm ent, 35 , 4,355-386.
Rhodes, R. (1997): Understanding Governance: Policy Network s, Govcrnan(;c. RI"
flexivity and Accountability, Buckingham.
110 Henning F!ilIer & Nadine Marquardt
Rose, N. (2000): Community, citizenship and the Third Way. American Behavioral
Scientist. 43, 9,1395-1410.
Rose, N. & Miller, P. (1992): Political power beyond the State: problematics of gov­
ernment. British Journal ofSociology, 43, 173-205.
Rosenau, J.N. (2004): Strong Demand, Huge Supply: Governance in an Emerging Ep­
och. In: Bache, 1. & Flinders, M. (eds): Multi-level Governance, Oxford, 31-48.
Smith, M.P. (2001): Transnational Urbanism. Locating Globalization, Malden .
Soja, E. (1989): Postmodern geographies: the reassertion of space in critical social
theory, London.
Soja, E. (1996): Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined
Places, Oxford.
Somerville, P. (2005): Community governance and democracy. Policy and Politics,
33,1 , 117-144.
Stenson, K. & Watt, P. (1999): Governmentality and 'the Death of the Social'?: A Dis­
course Analysis of Local Government Texts in South-east England. Urban Stud­
ies, 36, I, 189-201.
Swyngedouw, E. (2005): Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of
Governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies, 42, 11, 1991-2006.
Uitermark, 1. (2005): The genesis and evolution of urban policy: a confrontation of
regulationist and governmentality approaches. Political Geography, 24,2, 137­
163.
Windhoff-Heritier, A. (1994): Die Veranderung von Staatsaufgaben aus politikwissen­
schaftlich-institutioneller Sicht. In: Grimm, D. (ed): Staatsau(gaben, Baden-Ba­
den, 75-9\.
Anders Lund Hansen'
Space Wars and Urban Governance:
Inhumane Creative Urban Transformations
"Urban territory becomes the battlefield of continuous space war, sometimes erupt­
ing into the public spectacle of inner-city riots, ... but waged daily just beneath
the surface of the public (publicized), official version of the routine urban order"
(Bauman 1998, 22).
"In short, imperialism can be conceived as what Edward Said ... describes as a
multifaceted 'struggle over geography'" (Clayton 2000, 376).
'The city makes concrete some of the struggles and opposing interests of globed
capital and the new urban work forces on which it depends. What appear as 10(;:11­
ized struggles, such as anti-gentrification movements or fights on behalf of tl1\':
nghts of immigrants or those of the homeless, are actually the concrete enactment
of a much larger and more abstract conflict between the interests of global capital
and the interests of these new types of urban workforces. In this sense, the space 01'
the city enables a concrete moment in the formation of the different social forc~s
involved" (Sassen 2004, 12-13).
Conquering and controlling space is as old as humanity itself. From the cellular (0
the planetary scale, the battlefronts are many and varied. The urban scale is no excep­
tion. Urban transfom1ation processes are largely the outcome of space wars in that til>
liberate and systematic creative destruction is part of the logic behind contempora ry
capitalist space economy. Demolition of spaces of "the other" and construction of bor­
ders to control coming and going have been common practice among city builders 1'01'
millennia. Walls and weapons of force remain essential aspects of space wars pm·
ducing "wounded cities" and '''urbicide'' (Schneider & Susser 2003; Graham 20(4).
Space wars are however more than physical destruction, fortifications and mil it nry
hardware. Semiotic space wars are fundamental driving forces behind the eonstl'll" ­
tion of urban space.
The purpose of this chapter is twofold. Firstly, J look at how struggles ovc r li r­
ban space are a central aspect of ongoing production and transformation or c ities .
Thanks for critique and comments on earlier drafts of the l' ltart~r : b ic ('l ark, (i uy Ilao:t cn
and the organi zers of and pal1icipants in the FllTl IRF. "Urban (;(w(!rnall ~e" l.'nll fcn 'lwll.
in c")rchm, Sweden N<lVCl11bcr 24 26, 2()()6.