This is an era - it is often said - when things are speeding
up, and spreading out. Capital is going through a new phase of
internationalization, especially in its financial parts. More people travel
more frequently and for longer distances. Your clothes have probably made in a
range of countries from Latin America to South-East Asia. Dinner consists of
food shipped in from all over the world. And if you have a screen in your
office, instead of opening a letter which - care of Her Majesty's Post Office -
has taken some days to wend its way across the country, you now get interrupted
by e- mail. This view of the current age is one now frequently found in a wide
range of books and journals. Much of what is written about space, place and
postmodern times emphasizes a new phase in what Marx once called 'the
annihilation of space by time'. The process is argued, or - more usually -
asserted, to have gained a new momentum, to have reached a new stage. It is a
phenomenon which has been called 'time-space compression'. And the general
acceptance that something of the sort is going on the marked by the almost obligatory
use in the literature of terms and phrases such as speed-up, global village,
overcoming spatial barriers, the disruption of horizons, and so forth. One of
the results of this is an increasing uncertainty about what we mean by 'places'
and how we relate to them. How, in the face of all this movement and
intermixing, can we retain any sense of a local place and its particularity? An
(idealized) notion of an era when places were (supposedly) inhabited by
coherent and homogeneous communities is set against the current fragmentation
and disruption. The counterposition is anyway dubious, of course; 'place' and
'community' have only rarely been coterminous. But the occasional longing for
such coherence is none the less a sign of the geographic fragmentation, the
spatial disruption, of our times. And occasionally, too, it has been part of
what has given rise to defensive and reactionary responses - certain forms of
nationalism, sentimentalized recovering of sanitized 'heritages', and outright
antagonism to newcomers and 'outsiders'. One of the effects of such responses
is that place itself, the seeking after a sense of place, has come to be seen
by some as necessarily reactionary. But is that necessarily so? Can't we
rethink our sense of place? Is it not possible for a sense of place to be
progressive; not self-closing and defensive, but outward-looking? A sense of
place which is adequate to this era of time-space compression? To begin with,
there are some questions to be asked about time-space compression itself. Who
is it that experiences it, and how? Do we all benefit and suffer from it in the
same way? For instance, to what extent does the current popular
characterization of time-space compression represent very much a western,
colonizer's, view? The sense of dislocation which some feel at the sight of a
once well-known local street now lined with a succession of cultural imports -
the pizzeria, the kebab house, the branch of the middle-eastern bank - must
have been felt for centuries, thought from a very different point of view, by
colonized peoples all over the world as they watched the importation, maybe
even used, the products of, first, European colonization, maybe British (from
new forms of transport to liver salts and custard powder), later US, as they
learned to eat wheat instead of rice or corn, to drink CocaCola, just as today
we try out enchilades. Moreover, as well as querying the ethnocentricity of the
idea of time-space compression and its current acceleration, we also need to
ask about its causes: what is it that determines our degrees of mobility, that
influences the sense we have of space and place? Time-space compression refers
to movement and communication across space, to the geographical stretching-out
of social relations, and to our experience of all this. The usual
interpretation is that it results overwhelmingly from the actions of capital,
and from its currently increasing internationalization. On this interpretation,
then, it is time space and money which make the world go around, and us go
around (or not) the world. It is capitalism and its developments which are
argued to determine out understanding and out experience of space. But surely
this is insufficient. Among the many other things which clearly influence that
experience, there are, for instance, 'race' and gender. The degree to which we
can move between countries, or walk about the streets at night, or venture out
of hotels in foreign cities, is not just influenced by 'capital'. Survey after
survey has shown how women's mobility, for instance, is restricted - in a
thousand different ways, from physical violence to being ogled at or made to
feel quite simply 'out of place' - not by 'capital', but by men. Or, to take a
more complicated example, Birkett, reviewing books on women adventurers and
travellers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, suggests that 'it is far,
far more demanding for a woman to wander now than ever before'. The reasons she
gives for this argument are a complex mix of colonialism, ex-colonialism,
racism, changing gender relations and relative wealth. A simple resort to
explanation in terms of 'money' or 'capital' alone could not begin to get to
grips with the issue. The current speed-up may be strongly determined by
economic forces, but it is not the economy alone which determines our
experience of space and place. In other words, and put simply, there is a lot
more determining how we experience space than what 'capital' gets up to. What
is more, of course, that last example indicated that 'time-space compression'
has not been happening for everyone in all spheres of activity. Birkett again,
this time writing of the Pacific Ocean: "Jumbos have enabled Korean
computer consultants to fly to Silicon Valley as if popping next door, and
Singaporean entrepreneurs to reach Seattle in a day. The border of the world's
greatest ocean have been joined as never before. And Boeing has brought these
people together. But what about those they fly over, on their islands five
miles below? How has the mighty 747 brought them greater communion with those
whose shores are washed by the same water? It hasn't, of course. Air travel
might enable businessmen to buzz across the ocean, but the concurrent decline
in shipping has only increased the isolation of many island communities ...
Pitcairn, like many other Pacific islands, has never felt so far from its
neighbours." In other words, and most broadly, time-space compression
needs differentiating socially. this is not just a moral or political point
about inequality, although that would be sufficient reason to mention it; it is
also a conceptual point. Imagine for a moment that you are on a satellite,
further out and beyond all actual satellites; you can see 'planet earth' from a
distance and, unusually for someone with only peaceful intentions, you are
equipped with the kind of technology which allows you to see the colours of
people's eyes and the numbers on their number plates. You can see all the
movement and turn in to all the communication that is going on. Furthest out
are the satellites, then aeroplanes, the long haul between London and Tokyo and
the hop from San Salvador to Guatemala City. Some of this is people moving,
some of it is physical trade, some is media broadcasting. There are faxes,
e-mail, film-distribution networks, financial flows and transactions. Look in
closer and there are ships and trains, steam trains slogging laboriously up
hills somewhere in Asia. Look in closer still and there are lorries and cars
and buses, and on down further, somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, there's a
woman - amongst many women - on foot, who still spends hours a day collecting
water. Now I want to make one simple point here, and that is about what one
might call the power geometry of it all; the power geometry of time-space
compression. For different social groups, and different individuals, are placed
in very distinct ways in relation to these flows and interconnections. This
point concerns not merely the issue of who moves and who doesn't, although that
is an important element of it; it is also about power in relation to the flows
and the movement. Different social groups have distinct relationships to this
anyway differentiated mobility: some people are more in charge of it than
others; some initiate flows and movement, others don't; some are more on the
receiving-end of it than others; some are effectively imprisoned by it. In a
sense at the end of all the spectra are those who are both doing the moving and
the communicating and who are in some way in a position of control in relation
to it - the jetsetters, the ones sending and receiving the faxes and the
e-mail, holding the international conference calls, the ones distributing
films, controlling the news, organizing the investments and the international
currency transactions. These are the groups who are really in a sense in charge
of time-space compression, who can really use it and turn it to advantage,
whose power and influence it very definitely increases. On its more prosaic
fringes this group probably includes a fair number of western academics and
journalists - those, in other words, who write most about it. But there are
also groups who are also doing a lot of physical moving, but who are not 'in
charge' of the process in the same way at all. The refugees from El Salvador or
Guatemala and the undocumented migrant workers from Michoacan in Mexico,
crowding into Tijuana to make a perhaps fatal dash for it across the border
into the US to grab a chance of a new life. Here the experience of movement,
and indeed of a confusing plurality of cultures, is very different. And there
are those from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Caribbean, who come half way
round the world only to get held up in an interrogation room at Heathrow. Or -
a different case again - there are those who are simply on the receiving end of
time-space compression. The pensioner in a bed-sit in any inner city in this
country, eating British working-class-style fish and chips from a Chinese
take-away, watching a US film on a Japanese television; and not daring to go out
after dark. And anyway the public transport's been cut. Or - one final example
to illustrate a different kind of complexity - there are the people who live in
the favelas of Rio, who know global football like the back of their hand, and
have produced some of its players; who have contributed massively to global
music, who gave up the samba and produced the lambada that everyone was dancing
to last year in the clubs of Paris and London; and who have never, or hardly
ever, been to downtown Rio. At one level they have been tremendous contributors
to what we call time-space compression; and at another level they are
imprisoned in it. This is, in other words, a highly complex social
differentiation. There are differences in the degree of movement and communication,
but also in the degree of control and initiation. The ways in which people are
placed within 'time-space compression' are highly complicated and extremely
varied. But this in turn immediately raises questions of politics. If
time-space compression can be imagined in that more socially formed, socially
evaluative and differentiated way, then there may be here the possibility of
developing a politics of mobility and access. For it does seem that mobility,
and control over mobility, both reflects and reinforces power. It is not simply
a question of unequal distribution, that some people move more than others, and
that some have more control than others. It is that the mobility and control of
some groups can actively weaken other people. Differential mobility can weaken
the leverage of the already weak. The time-space compression of some groups can
undermine the power of others. This is well established and often noted in the
relationship between capital and labour Capital's ability to roam the world
further strengthens it in relation to relatively immobile workers, enables it
to play off the plant at Genk against the plant at Dagenham. It also
strengthens its hand against struggling local economies there world over as
they complete for the favour of some investment. The 747s that fly computer
scientists across the Pacific are part of the reason for the greater isolation
today of the island of Pitcairn. But also, every time someone uses a car, and
thereby increases their personal mobility, they reduce both the social
rationale and the financial viability of the public transport system - and
thereby also potentially reduce the mobility of those who rely on that system.
Every time you drive to that out-of-town shopping centre you contribute to the
rising prices, even hasten the demise, of the corner shop. And the 'time-space
compression' which is involved in producing and reproducing the daily lives of
the comfortably-off in First World societies - not just their own travel but
the resources they draw on, from all over the world, to feed their lives - may
entail environmental consequences, or hit constraints, which will limit the
lives of others before their own. We need to ask, in other words, whether our
relative mobility and power over mobility and communication entrenches the
spatial imprisonment of other groups. But this way of thinking about time-space
compression also returns us to the question of place and a sense of place. How,
in the context of all these socially varied time-space changes do we think
about 'places'? In an era when, it is argued, 'local communities' seem to be
increasingly broken up, when you can go abroad and find the same shops, the
same music as at home, or eat your favourite foreign-holiday food at a
restaurant down the road - and when everyone has a different experience of all
this - how then do we think about 'locality'? Many of those who write about
time-space compression emphasize the insecurity and unsettling impact of its
effects, the feeling of vulnerability which it can produce. Some therefore go
on from this to argue that, in the middle of all this flux, people desperately
need a bit of peace and quiet - and that a strong sense of place, or locality,
can form one kind of refuge from the hubbub. So the search after the 'real'
meanings of places, the unearthing of heritages and so forth, is interpreted as
being, in part, a response to desire for fixity and for security of identity in
the middle of all the movement and change. A 'sense of place', of rootedness,
can provide - in this form and on this interpretation - stability and a source
of unproblematical identity. In that guise, however, place and the spatially
local are then rejected by many progressive people as almost necessarily
reactionary. They are interpreted as an evasion; as a retreat from the
(actually unavoidable) dynamic and change of 'real life', which is what we must
seize if we are to change things for the better. On this reading, place and
locality are foci for a form of romanticized escapism from the real business of
the world. While 'time' is equated with movement and progress, 'space'/'place'
is equated with stasis and reaction. There are some serious inadequacies in
this argument. There is the question of why it is assumed that time-space
compression will produce insecurity. There is the need to face up to - rather
than simply deny - people's need for attachment of some sort, whether through
place or anything else. None the less, it is certainly the case that there is
indeed at the moment a recrudescence of some very problematical sense of place,
from reactionary nationalisms, to competitive localisms, to introverted
obsessions with 'heritage'. We need, therefore, to think through what might be
an adequately progressive sense of place, one which would fit in with the current
global-local times and the feelings and relations they give rise to, and which
would be useful in what are, after all, political struggles often inevitably
based on place. The question is how to hold on to that notion of geographical
difference, of uniqueness, even of rootedness if people want that, without
being reactionary. There are a number of distinct ways in which the
'reactionary' notion of place described above is problematical. One is the idea
that places have single, essential, identities. Another is the idea that place
- the sense of place - is constructed out of an introverted, inward-looking
history based on delving into the past for internalized origins, translating
the name from the Domesday Book. Thus Wright recounts the reconstruction and
appropriation of Stoke Newington and its past by the arriving middle class (the
Domesday Book registers the place as 'Newtowne'): 'There is land for two
ploughs and a half ... There are four villanes and thirty seven cottagers with
ten acres'. And he contrasted this version with that of other groups - the
white working class and the large number of important minority communities. A
particular problem with this conception of place is that it seems to require
the drawing of boundaries. Geographers have long been exercised by the problem
of defining regions, and this question of 'definition' has almost always been
reduced to the issue of drawing lines around a place. I remember some of my
most painful times as a geographer have been spent unwillingly struggling to
think how one could draw a boundary around somewhere like the 'east midlands'.
But that kind of boundary around an area precisely distinguishes between an
inside and an outside. It can so easily be yet another way of constructing a
counterposition between 'us' and them'. And yet if one considers almost any
real place, and certainly one not defined primarily by administrative or
political boundaries, these supposed characteristics have little real purchase.
Take, for instance, a walk down Kilburn High Road, my local shopping centre. It
is a pretty ordinary place, north-west of the centre of London. Under the
railway bridge the newspaper stand sells papers from every county of what my
neighbours, many of whom come from there, still often call the Irish Free
State. The postboxes down the High Road, and many an empty space on a wall, are
adorned with the letters IRA. Other available spaces are plastered this week
with posters for a special meeting in remembrance: Ten Years after the Hunger
Strike. At the local theatre Eamon Morrissey has a one-man show; the National
Club has the Wolfe Tones on, and at the Black Lion there's Finnegan's Wake. In
two shops I notice this week's lottery ticket winners: in one the name is
Teresa Gleeson, in the other, Chouman Hassan. Thread your way through the often
almost stationary traffic diagonally across the road from the newsstand and
there's a shop which as long as I can remember has displayed saris in the
window. Four life-sized models of Indian women, and reams of cloth. On the door
a notice announces a forthcoming concert at Wembley Arena: Anand Miland
presents Rekha, life, with Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Jahi Chawla and Raveena
Tandon. On another ad, for the end of the month, is written, 'All Hindus are
cordially invited'. In another newsagents I chat with the man who keeps it, a
Muslim unutterably depressed by events in the Gulf, silently chafing at having
to sell the Sun. Overhead there is always at least one aeroplane - we seem to
have on a flight-path to Heathrow and by the time they're over Kilburn you can
see them clearly enough to tell the airline and wonder as you struggle with
your shopping where they're coming from. Below, the reason the traffic is
snarled up (another odd effect of timespace compression!) is in part because
this is one of the main entrances to and escape routes from London, the road to
Staples Corner and the beginning of the M1 to 'the North'. This is just the
beginnings of a sketch from immediate impressions but a proper analysis could
be done of the links between Kilburn and the world. And so it could for almost
any place. Kilburn is a place for which I have a great affection; I have lived
there many years. It certainly has 'a character of its own'. But it is possible
to feel all this without subscribing to any of the static and defensive - and
in that sense reactionary - notions of 'place' which were referred to above.
First, while Kilburn may have a character of its own, it is absolutely not a
seamless, coherent identity, a single sense of place which everyone shares. It
could hardly be less so. People's routes through the place, their favourite
haunts within it, the connections the make (physically, or by phone or post, or
in memory and imagination) between here and the rest of the world vary enormously.
If it is now recognized that people have multiple identities then the same
point can be made in relation to places. Moreover, such multiple identities can
either be a source of richness or a source of conflict, or both. One of the
problems here has been a persistent identification of place with 'community'.
Yet this is a misidentification. One the one hand, communities can exist
without being in the same place - from networks of friends with lie interests,
to major religious, ethnic or political communities. On the other hand, the
instances of places housing single 'communities' in the sense of coherent
social groups are probably - and, I would argue, have for long been - quite
rare. Moreover, even where they do exist this in no way implies a single sense
of place. For people occupy different positions within any community. We could
counterpose to the chaotic mix of Kilburn the relatively stable and homogenous
community (at least in popular imagery) of a small mining village. Homogeneous?
'Communities' too have internal structures. To take the most obvious example,
I'm sure a woman's sense of place in a mining village - the spaces through
which she normally moves, the meeting places, the connections outside - are
different from a man's. Their 'senses of the place' will be different.
Moreover, not only does 'Kilburn', then, have many identities (or its full
identity is a complex mix of all these) it is also, looked at in this way,
absolutely not introverted. It is (out ought to be) impossible even to begin
thinking about Kilburn High Road without bringing into play half the world and
a considerable amount of British imperialist history (and this certainly goes
for mining villages too). Imagining it this way provokes in you (or at least in
me) a really global sense of place. And finally, in contrast the way of looking
at places with the defensive reactionary view, I certain could not begin to,
nor would I want to, define 'Kilburn' by drawing its enclosing boundaries. So,
at this point in the argument, get back in your mind's eve on a satellite; go
right out again and look back at the globe. This time, however, imagine not
just all the physical movement, nor even all the often invisible
communications, but also and especially all the social relations, all the links
between people. Fill it in with all those different experiences of timespace
compression. For what is happening is that the geography of social relations is
changing. In many cases such relations are increasingly stretched out over
space. Economic, political and cultural social relations, each full of power
and with internal structures of domination and subordination, stretched out
over the planet at every different level, from the household to the local area
to the international. It is from that perspective that it is possible to
envisage an alternative interpretation of place. In this interpretation, what
gives a place its specificity is not some long internalized history but the
face that it is constructed out of a particular constellation of social
relations, meeting and weaving together at a particular locus. If one moves in
from the satellite towards the globe, holding all those networks of social
relations and movements and communications in one's head, then each 'place' can
be seen as a particular, unique, point of their intersection. It is, indeed, a
meeting place. Instead then, of thinking of places as areas with boundaries
around, they can be imagined as articulated moments in networks of social
relations and understandings, but where a larger proportion of those relations,
experiences and understandings are constructed on a far larger scale than what
we happen to define for that moment as the place itself, whether that be a
street, or a region or even a continent. And this in turn allows a sense of
place which is extroverted, which includes a consciousness of its links with
the wider world, which integrates in a positive way the global and the local.
This is not a question of making the ritualistic connections to 'the wider
system' - the people in the local meeting who bring up international capitalism
every time you try to have a discussion about rubbish-collection - the point is
that there are real relations with real content - economic, political, cultural
- between any local place and the wider world in which it is set. In economic
geography the argument has long been accepted that it is not possible to
understand the 'inner city', for instance its loss of jobs, the decline of
manufacturing employment there, by looking only at the inner city. Any adequate
explanation has to set the inner city in its wider geographical context.
Perhaps it is appropriate to think how that kind of understanding could be
extended to the notion of a sense of place. These arguments, then, highlight a
number of ways in which a progressive concept of place might be developed.
First of all, it is absolutely not static. If places can be conceptualized in
terms of the social interactions which they tie together, then it is also the
case that these interactions themselves are not motionless things, frozen in
time. They are processes. One of the great one-liners in Marxist exchanges has
for long been, 'Ah, but capital is not a thing, it's a process.' Perhaps this
should be said also about places, that places are processes, too. Second,
places do not have boundaries in the sense of divisions which frame simple
enclosures. 'Boundaries' may be of course be necessary, for the purposes of
certain turn of studies for instance, but they are not necessary for the
conceptualization of a place itself. Definition in this sense does not have to
be through simple counterposition to the outside; it can come, in part,
precisely through the particularity of linkage to that 'outside' which is
therefore itself part of what constitutes the place. This helps get away from
the common association between penetrability and vulnerability. For it is this
kind of association which makes invasion by newcomers so threatening. Third,
clearly places do not have single, unique 'identities'; they are full of
internal conflicts. Just think, for instance, about London's Docklands, a place
which is at the moment quite clearly defined by conflict: a conflict over what
it past has been (the nature of its 'heritage'), conflict over what should be
its present development, conflict over what could be its future. Fourth, and
finally, none of this denies place nor the importance of the uniqueness of
place. The specificity of place is continually reproduced, but it s not a
specificity which result from some long, internalized history. there are a
number of sources of this specificity - the uniqueness of place. There is the
fact that the wider social relations in which places are set themselves
geographically differentiated. Globalization (in the economy, or in culture, or
in anything else) does not entail simply homogenization. On the contrary, the
globalization of social relations is yet another source of (the reproduction
of) geographical uneven development, and thus of the uniqueness of place. There
is the specificity of place which derives from the fact that each place is the
focus of a distinct mixture of wider and more local social relations. There is
the fact that this very mixture together in one place may produce effects which
would not have happened otherwise. And finally, all these relations with and
take a further element of specificity from the accumulated history of a place,
with that history itself imagined as the product of layer upon layer of
different sets of linkages, both local and to the wider world. In her portrait
of Corsica, Granite Island, Dorothy Carrington travels the island seeking out
the roots of its character. All the different layers of people and cultures are
explored; the long and tumultuous relationship with France, with Genoa and
Aragon in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, back through the
much earlier incorporation into the Byzantine Empire, and before the domination
by the Vandals, before that being part of the Roman Empire, before that the
colonization and settlements of the Carthaginians and the Greeks ... until we
find ... that even the megalith builders had come to Corsica from somewhere
else. It is a sense of place, an understanding of 'its character', which can
only be constructed by linking that place to places beyond. A progressive sense
of place would recognize that, without being threatened by it. What we need, it
seems to me, is a global sense of the local, a global sense of place.
Comments
Post a Comment