Book reviews 425 is that Muslim identities are heterogeneous.

Though it has become something of a clich to pluralize human geographies, the plurals in the title of this book geographies and identities are well justied and effectively elaborated. Muslims, as successive chapters demonstrate, hold one thing in common, and sometimes only one. Patricia Ehrkamp discusses the complex relationships between religious and national identity among Turkish immigrants in Germany, distinguishing between the ways in which non-Muslim Germans perceive this relationship (thinking of most Turks as Muslims) and the more nuanced realities experienced by the immigrants themselves (only around two-thirds of whom identify as Muslims). Cameron McAuliffe finds the Muslim Iranian diaspora equally mixed, describing Iran as a container of diversity, neither homogeneously Islamic nor, within its Muslim communities, homogenous in any other way (p. 30). Other papers, portraying the heterogeneity of Muslim communities, contest stereotypes about Muslims. Discussing ScottishPakistani communities in suburban Glasgow, Sadiq Mir contests stereotypes that link Muslims (alongside other racial, ethnic and religious minorities) with inner cities, and whiteness with suburbs. Samuel Zalanga contests the characterization of Islam as a backward or past-time religion, by distinguishing between different ways in which Islam has been used to inform economic development strategies. Finding Nigerian Islam conservative and its Malaysian counterpart progressive, he argues against characterizing this or any other religion as conservative or progressive. Instead, he argues, we should ask under what conditions a religion does become a force promoting desirable social change and under what conditions does it become a fetter (p. 166). Addressing the heterogeneity of Muslim identities and geographies, this book also examines the diversity of Muslim experiences of gender. In one of the highlights of the book, Sonja van Wichelen shows how Islamization in Indonesia has conjured up new images and discourses of Muslim bodies (p. 93). Cultural transformation, she explains, revolves around gendered and sexualized political figures, bodies invoked through debates about the practices and regulation of marriage, veiling, female circumcision, polygamy, and womens roles. Patricia Ehrkamp examines how some of the same debates have unfolded in Europe, and been brought there to different concerns: including Dutch multiculturalism and German debates about immigration. Other chapters on gender, the body and Islam include: Tess Kays study of sisters in sport; an essay by Ellen Green and Carrie Singleton on the negotiation of risk by South Asian women; and Gabriele Marrancis analysis of migration as a gendered practice. Gender is not always or only about women, of course, as Peter Hopkins shows in a chapter about the experiences of young Muslim men in their local areas, in the wake of 11 September. The heterogeneity and change in Muslim experiences of gender, described in these chapters, unsettle generalizations about the place(s) of Muslim women and men, which are central to stereotypes about Muslims. So this book is more than the sum of its parts. A series of detailed empirical studies, the chapters come together to form a fundamentally geographical picture of diversity and agency, both of gender and other threads of Muslim experience, which contest stereotypes about Muslims. Here an eclectic, scholarly study of a community or rather a series of interconnected yet distinct communities becomes something of a political intervention. Richard Phillips University of Liverpool Crampton, J.W. and Elden, S., editors 2007: Space, knowledge and power: Foucault and geography. Aldershot: Ashgate. 377 pp. 60 cloth, 22.50 paper. ISBN: 978 0 7546 4655 6 cloth, 978 0 7546 4655 6 paper. Michel Foucault is arguably the most influential of the French poststructuralist

426 Progress in Human Geography 33(3) thinkers whose work has been adopted in the last 20 years by human geographers in the critical Anglo-American mainstream of the discipline. It has been argued that Foucaults work is profoundly spatial, offering a welcome counterpoint to the domination of historical ideas in the critical social sciences. However, these spatial concepts are dispersed throughout a wide corpus of published monographs, essays and lectures, and many of Foucaults key writings on space are difcult to access, or as yet untranslated into the English language. Also, despite many researchers being strongly influenced by Foucault, and the existence of a number of important monographs deploying Foucauldian ideas in particular geographical contexts (see, for example, Hannah, 2000; Elden, 2001; Philo, 2004), no collection has yet attempted to review the state of the art of Foucauldian work in the discipline until, that is, the publication of Space, knowledge and power. Publicity material claims this is the first book to engage Foucaults geographies in detail from a wide range of perspectives, and that the book will both surprise and challenge any reader who thinks they know what Foucault said and did with space. The book is puffed as an essential text, an exhilarating collection of essays and the essential reference work. It is woven together from disparate sources: republished or newly translated critical writings from Foucault himself are juxtaposed with responses from Anglophone and Francophone writers, contextual explorations around the signicance of Foucaults ideas in particular elds, and a series of reections on contemporary developments and responses to Foucault. The structure of the book is unusual. Twenty-seven chapters, organized into six parts, with an introduction and index suggests a rather atomized 377 pages. Very few edited works include that many contributions in that little space. The structure is deliberately chosen to encourage an active engagement with the subject, instead of offering a definitive guide an interesting tension with publicity claims towards its authority as a text. The editors introduce and justify their position, claiming the book has twin aims: namely, to offer a comprehensive overview of Foucaults engagement with geography and of geography with Foucault, but also to open up new themes and questions, so as to encourage an ongoing engagement. They suggest Foucaults position in relation to geography remains unclear and explain how their work is organized around the centrepiece of Foucaults questions to the French journal Hrodote, appearing here translated for the rst time.1 The editors argue these four questions are at the centre of Foucaults engagement with geography, along with his earlier and oft-quoted Questions on Geography, also reprinted later in this volume. I felt the device of anchoring the book to Foucaults questions to Hrodote was rather contrived only rarely do any of the chapters explicitly reect on these questions, or address their concerns directly. These newly translated questions are followed by more translations of Francophone responses originally published in 1977 in Hrodote, from Brabant, Joxe, Racine and Raffestin, and Riou. Specially commissioned responses from the Anglophone world from David Harvey, Sara Mills, Nigel Thrift, and Thomas Flynn follow, juxtaposing a contrast across time and disciplinary culture. Thrift and Harvey are strongly critical of the Foucauldian project; Mills appears to be tacked in as a gesture towards gender, but two and a half pages is clearly inadequate space to develop these important ideas properly; Flynn is rather too removed from the geographical mainstream. A strongly contrasting style emerges, with French work much more synthetic, harder to read and less well supported by citation than the more analytical Anglophone pieces. The next part of the book situates Foucaults ideas in Anglophone and Francophone academic contexts. Elden explores Foucauldian practice in the late 1970s. Hannah uses Foucaults own archaeological approach to examine the discursive construction of

Book reviews 427 his work, backing up his exploration with questionnaire responses from those most inuenced by Foucaults ideas; this is probably the most fascinating chapter in the entire book. Fall contrasts the enthusiastic Anglophone response of the 1980s and 1990, to the very limited inuence of Foucault on French geographic practice. Raffestin (translated into English here) assesses whether Foucaults ideas might have led to, or could still lead to, change in French geographic practice. I felt the fascinating material in this section might have made rather more of the juxtaposition of initial French responses to subsequent commissioned English-language essays. Contexts are rather too hermetic. The fifth section (Texts) returns to Foucaults work with four new translations of critical passages in his writings on space that are not widely known, but which are central in his theorizing of the relations of space and power, as well as a reprint of his better known Questions on Geography . A rather strange structural strategy to organize material in this way surely it would have been better to group all the texts together and then reect on their signicance? The arrangement separates Texts from Questions; reflection takes place before the text itself has been read. The final part of Space, knowledge and power illustrates contemporary and newly emerging directions being taken by Anglophone geographers whose work draws in part on the Foucauldian tradition, with eight widely varying chapters. The most successful of these are those that focus on conceptual critique, notably: Margo Huxleys masterly development of notions of governmentality; David Murakami Woods analysis of the potential of actor-network based approaches to surveillance studies that move beyond the Foucauldian figure of the panopticon; Stephen Leggs exploration of the relations of Foucault to postcolonial theory and the work of Edward Said; Philip Howells call for a more nuanced reading of space in the treatment of sexual geographies; and Matthew Coleman and John Agnews explicitly political consideration of post-9/11 geopolitics. Other chapters in this section are rather less successful: Kearns chapter sits rather oddly as a subdisciplinary summary; Cramptons provides an isolated empirical case study; and Philos offers a tightly argued analysis of a single less well-known piece of the Foucauldian corpus. The key question is whether this collection lives up to the puffs and fulls editorial aims. Like all collections its coverage is patchy chapters are seriously uneven in their length and scope. Some are too brief to convince, some stick closely to the Foucauldian texts, others depart and critique. The majority of chapters, however, are incisive and closely argued; they alone make this book a very stimulating read. I felt the introduction might have introduced key Foucauldian concepts in more detail and related these more closely to the historical trajectory of his work, and indeed to his biography. One is forced back to the excellent index to discover how these concepts have been deployed and developed in Foucaults work biopower, the panopticon, power-knowledge, discursive formation, the episteme, disciplinary institution and genealogy might all have been introduced and their spatial signicance assessed. The rich resource in this text might then have been more easily digested. Spectral characters haunt this work. The gloomy gure of Foucault is present but is never really grasped his spirit imbues the work, but seems rather like the image on the cover of the work, looking neither at the subject nor at the reader, but gazing moodily in slightly fuzzy grey tones in a sideways direction. French, dead, abstract and absent. Somehow translation and time make the whole discourse rather distanced. Several of the key gures in the rst generation of geographical Foucauldians are also absent: Gregory puffs the book on the back cover, but is not there to develop or critique these

428 Progress in Human Geography 33(3) ideas in the book itself; Driver responds to Hannahs questionnaire but it would have been fascinating to hear how he now views his earlier engagement with Foucault; Pickles also eulogizes the book, but is also absent. In many ways this is a book for Foucauldians, not a sustained and critical evaluation of the relations between Foucault and the discipline. One wonders indeed how many geographers still regard Foucauldian ideas as innovative as Huxley comments in her questionnaire response to Hannah (p. 95), many staff consider Foucault a bit old hat: were all Deleuzian, ANT, nature/culture, hybridity, post colonial now. It would have been refreshing to have commissioned a wider critical reection on the contemporary signicance of Foucauldian ideas 20 years after his death, instead of the rather scattergunlike nal section. Also the work cries out for a conclusion to draw themes back together, encourage critique, make links, and reflect on the changing significance of the original man in black. So if you are into Foucault this is a must-read text. If you remain to be convinced then I doubt this book will convince you! Chris Perkins Manchester University
1. The questions are: what are the relations between knowledge, war and power; what does it mean to call spatial knowledge a science; what do geographers understand by power; and what would geographies of medical establishments understood as interventions look like? They were originally published in French in 1976, as a response to the journals earlier questions to Foucault.

Getimis, P. and Kafkalas, G. editors 2007: Overcoming fragmentation in Southeast Europe. Spatial development trends and integration potential . Aldershot: Ashgate. 331 pp. 55 cloth. ISBN: 978 0 7546 4796 6. Edited by two Greek spatial planners, this book gathers together the expertise mainly of Greek architects, engineers and spatial economists, and is supported by some other international scholars. Developed over the course of six years, as part of two INTERREG projects (ESTIA and ESTIA-SPOSE), the volume revolves around the question of whether the elaboration and pursuit of a common vision for the spatial development of Southeast Europe (SEE) is possible. The answer of the editors is all but univocal, as they maintain that the complex background consisting of antithetical integrative and segmental forces and trends can de facto have it in both ways. In this sense, the future of the Balkans (the other name used by some authors for SEE) remains a mystery also for spatial planners. Issues of geography (a rugged terrain), unresolved ethnic and religious tensions, underdevelopment, and institutional weakness limit the ways in which socioeconomic and spatial integration can be implemented in this part of Europe. Despite the fact that some institutional reforms, prompted by the necessity to adjust to the EU legal framework, have put the SEE in a better institutional capacity today, this does not necessarily transform into an institutional capability, as conrmed by Kafkalas, Getimis and Demetropoulou in their introductory and concluding remarks. The effectiveness of the policies of transition and accession is also questioned by Petrakos and Kallioras in their quantitative study on the impact of economic integration among the new EU member states during the pre-accession period. Their statistical evidence shows the increase of regional inequality, with the emergence of clear winners (the capital and western border regions in Central Europe) and losers (the non-metropolitan

Elden, S. 2001: Mapping the present: Heidegger, Foucault and the project of a spatial history. London: Continuum. Hannah, M. 2000: Governmentality and the mastery of territory in nineteenth-century America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Philo, C. 2004: A geographical history of institutional provision for the insane from medieval times to the 1860s in England and Wales: the space reserved for insanity. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.