Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Annals of the Association of American Geographers.
http://www.jstor.org
requires
adequate account of social spatiality
supplementing-not replacing-conceptions
ofobjectivespace witha notionofsocialspace.
ofthe
Thesecondpartanalyzestheexplanation
spatialpropertiesofsocialphenomenaand the
rolesthese propertiescan playin
explanatory
social science. It arguesthatthe explanation
are no
usesofsuchproperties
and explanatory
and
inprinciplefromtheexplanation
different
usesofotherfeaturesofsociallife.
explanatory
My overallgoal is to offera philosophicalaccountof spatialontologyand explanationthat
can inform
empiricalresearch.The hoped-for
is two-fold:
ofthisaccount,accordingly,
utility
discussionofhuman(1)to advancetheoretical
and itsexplanation,and (2) to
social spatiality
serveas a templatethroughwhichempirical
by
researcherscan examinesocial spatiality,
new objects forresearchand ofidentifying
feringa novel conceptionof the justification
None
ofspatialexplanations.
and construction
of thismeansthatI thinkthatphilosophyhas
enterprise.
anyspecialclaimto be a grounding
Indeed, no particulardisciplinehas exclusive
rightsto thisstatus.Whatis foundationalis a
clusterof ontologicaland epistemologicalissues,withpracticaland methodologicalimplications,whichare not the exclusiveprovince
ofanycurrently
designatedacademicdiscipline
bytheoreticians
and whichcan be investigated
froma range of fields.Philosophyis one of
thesefields.Hence, it is in the positionto deforempirical
velop theses withramifications
work.
BeforeproceedingI wanttocommentbriefly
to myanalysis.In
on twometa-issues
pertinent
firstsketchingan ontologyand thenderiving
consequences fromit,I conepistemological
travenethosewhowouldpressepistemological
questionspriorto ontology.
(and/orlinguistic)
My view on the relationof ontologyto epistemologyis that,justas anyontologypresupso too everyepisteposes an epistemology,
mology presupposes an ontology. Neither
Spatial Ontology
Spaces and Society
By way of introduction,I wish to discuss a
pairof conjunctions: objective space and social
space, and society and space.
The distinctionbetween objective space and
social space marksa divide in the conceptualization of social spatiality(the spatial nature of
social existence). There are two sortsof objective space: absolute and relational(see Gatrell
1983, ch. 1). In its absolute version, space is a
self-subsistent,homogeneous, isotropic medium in which objects exist. In its relational
version,itisa systemof relationsamong objects
and thus not independent of the latter.In ei-
651
652
Schatzki
a nexusofplaceswhereit
language,erschliesst)
itselfoccurs.,Of course,since social realityis
lives,a perratherthanindividual
interrelated,
sonalwaysproceedsthroughnexusesofplaces
of humanlives have opened
thata plurality
together.Humanagencyis indeedspatial.The
thatmakeit more
dimensionsof thisspatiality
thanmerelyobjectivein charactermust,however,be recognized.
Sincesocialspace isopened byand thusdoes
ofhumanlives,itclearnotexistindependently
mediumor sublycannotbe a self-subsistent
since it is a space occustance.Furthermore,
it cannotbe a system
pied by humanactivity,
of relationsamong such activities.Unfortutreatsonately,most,thoughnotall,theorists
as an objectivespace.
cial spatiality
exclusively
Accordingto AndrewSayer(1985,53),forinto socialspace are infact
stance,all references
referencesto its constituentsbecause social
space is merelyan abstractionfromthe relaForTorsten
tionsbetweentheseconstituents.
the space
(e.g.,1970),meanwhile,
Higerstrand
an
of societyis a web of life-paths
traversing
objectiveEuclideanspace. NeilSmith(1984,7475), as a finalexample,contrastsgeographical
space, the physicalspace of cities,fields,and
hurricanes,
withsocialspace,thefieldofsocial
space
activities
and events,whichisa relational
andevents.Itbears
composedbytheseactivities
of socialspace and of
notingthatdescriptions
objectivespace can resembleone anrelational
other:
and societies
Giddensis arguingthatindividuals
are not just located in lineartimeand absolute
timeand space sociallysuch
space but structure
thattheyproducerelativeconfigurations
of both
specificto particulartimesand places (Gregson
1986,185).
emotionand feeling,which"incorporatesthe
ofa people" (Tuan
experiencesand aspirations
1974,213),oftenservesas a centerof activity,
and throughall of thisprovidesmeaningto
people's lives.On myaccount,placesare simThey
activities.
plyplacesto carryoutparticular
be the object of
need not incarnateanything,
or conemotionor attachment,
anyparticular
tainanymoremeaningthanthispracticalone.
(I notethatsome ofTuan'slaterwork,e.g.,the
discussionof house and theaterin Tuan 1982,
convergeswithmy use of 'place' in treating
as micrositesfor
places and spaces primarily
I do notfollowthose
Further,
humanactivity.)
theorists
who speakof objects,e.g., landscape
elements,as symbolsexpressiveofnorms,ideals,and values(e.g., Cosgrove1984).Such elementsdo exist.The objects at whichplaces
are anchored(see laterdiscussion),however,
do not"symbolize"theseplaces.Anobjectcan
have a meaningwithoutsymbolizingor exit.Thisistrue,I believe,ofmosthuman
pressing
includingwords.The meaningsuch
artifacts,
entitieshaveaccrueto themfromtheuse people make of them,and only occasionallydo
expressthesemeantheysymbolizeor directly
ings.
A second conjunction,prominentin recent
isspaceand
ofsociospatial
ontology,
discussions
society.Whereas'objective space and social
positionson the proper
space' marksdifferent
'space and soconceptionof social spatiality,
ciety'asks about the relationbetween social
The twoalterphenomenaand theirspatiality.
nativeconceptionsofobjectivespace yielddifferentviewson thisrelation.
At one timethreedecades or so ago, some
viewedspace as a realmof forms
geographers
and relationsautonomousfromand governed
by lawsmakingno referenceto the socialentitiesthathave spatialproperties.Space was
with
viewedas a kindofsubstancethatinteracts
a secondsortofsubstance,society,to produce
concrete social life. In contrastto absolute
space, relationalspace has no independent,
natureand is incapableof interactsubstantial
ingwithsocial entities.All thereis are social
whoseinteractions
entities
yieldspaceas a pure
thereisno reciprocal
Accordingly,
by-product.
relationbetween space and societyas in the
absolutistconstrual,only a one-way dependence of space on society.Now, it is obvious
thatthe notionof interacting
substancesdoes
not apply to social space. One-way depen-
653
654
Schatzki
investigation
is the construction
of surveyability-providing
overviewsof these happenings.
In any case, the interestsocial science has in
localnessis identicalwithitsinterestin social
affairs.
Itis notinterested
in localcontextsonly
because social reproductionand socialization
take place there(Pred 1981,6; cf. Thrift
and
Pred1981,279).
SocialSpatiality.
Since social realityis interrelatedongoinglives,the spatiality
of interrelatedlivesisthespatiality
ofthisreality.
We can
beginour investigation
of socialspatiality
with
the builtenvironment.
The builtenvironment
(including
thenatural
environment
confinedwithinit) mustnot be
viewedfirst
as a physicalenvironment.
Rather,
itis partofsocialrealityin the firstplace as an
organizednexusof places and paths.A place
is a place to X,e.g.,a bed is a place to sleep,a
tablea place to eat,and a bus stop a place to
catchthebus.As theseexamplesdemonstrate,
placesare definedby referenceto humanactivities.
Theyare anchored,moreover,in built,
or naturally
modified,
occurring
objects;a place
to X alwaysexistswheresome object(s)exists.
Whatplaces can existwhere,consequently,
is
conditionedand constrained
bytheproperties
ofobjects.Paths,moreover,
area particular
type
of place: places on whichto reach Y fromX
(routes).Likeall places,theyare anchoredin
objects.
Pathsand places are organizedin turninto
largerentities:settings,
locales,and regions.A
settingisa looselyor tightly
of
bundledtotality
places.Examples
frommodernWesternsociety
are streetcorners,factory
assembly-line
floors,
and mountaintops.
Ingeneral,since
classrooms,
placesare anchoredinobjects,settings
are anchored in configurations
of objects. Consequently,whatsettingscan existwhereis constrained
and conditionedbytheproperties
and
objectivespatialrelationsof such configurations.Often,moreover,settings,forinstance
thoseinan apartment
aredemarcated
building,
by barriersthatlimitexperientialand mobile
In the absence of such barriers,
penetrability.
forinstanceina park,settings
can stilloftenbe
identifiedand differentiated
by referenceto
eitherorganizational
structures
or the bundles
of activitiesthatare to occur in them.Organizationalstructure
is the wayobjectsare laid
out ina setting(e.g.,an assembly-line
floor)to
establishan organizedarrayof placesat which
655
656
Schatzki
As indicated,
thespace ofplacesisanchored
inandconditionedbyconfigurations
ofobjects
alongwiththe objectivespaces these objects
compose. Moreover,since places can be attributedthe locationsof theiranchors,social
realitycontainsa distribution
of places in objectivespace.Socialspace,however,cannotbe
treatedas a relationalspace. No amountof relationsamonga setofobjects,includinghuman
beings,suffices
to establishthatparticular
places orsettings
areanchoredatthesesets.Rather,
as I willdiscussshortly,
humanlivesare whatis
responsibleforwhatplacesexistwhere.A forof places does not reduce to a
tiori,a totality
ofrelationsamongobjects.Social
combination
space and objectivespace are distinct
butconnecteddimensionsof socialspatiality.
Althoughsocial space is clearlynot a relationalspace, it does resembleabsolutespace
inbeinga "medium"inwhichentitiesofa particularsort(activities)
occur. The parallelcollapses,however,forat leasttwoimportant
reasons.First,
whileabsolutespaceishomogeneous
and continuous,a nexusof places is inhomogeneous,overlapping,
and at timesdiscontinuous. Second, whileabsolutespace existsinoftheobjectsoccurringin it,the
dependently
space of places is not apartfromthe human
livesthatopen and occupyit.
We can now concretizethisidea thatsocial
space is opened and occupied bylives.Human
lives open places at which they themselves
transpirebecause what places are anchored
wheredependson actionsand action-governingfactors.Places depend on these phenomena intwoways.First,
the environment
and its
conobjective space is usuallyintentionally
structedto anchorparticular
arraysof places,
settings,and locales. This occurs whenever
people buildenvironments
withan eyeto their
own ends and projectsand/orthe ends,projects,and actionsthatfutureoccupantsofthe
willpursueand carryout. But
builtstructures
the existenceof places depends on people in
a way much more immediatethan this.The
"wheres"atwhichhumanlifehappensarecontinuously
opened bythelivesthatoccupythem
(see Heidegger1978, sects. 22-24; also Merleau-Ponty1962,part1,ch. 3). Thismeansthat
whatplaces existat anymomentat anyset of
objectsdependson theends,projects,actions,
and also moods,rules,and ideas ofthe people
livingamid them. Depending on a person's
moodsand thoughts,
a cohort'sdesk can be a
ofwaysinwhichpeople make
ever,theplurality
the
geography.Theydo so (1) by performing
and built
activities
and producingthe artifacts
relationsamongwhichconstienvironments,
tute relationalspaces encompassingactivities
and objectsor objectsalone; (2) by specifying
andenforcing
boththatspecificplacesand setconfigurations
tingsare anchoredat particular
of objectsand thatcertainends,projects,and
actionsare realizedat particular
placesand settings;(3) by virtueof actionsand action-govdetermining
arrays
erningfactorscontinuously
of places; and (4) by occupyingplaces. Social
evolvesnot onlywhen people build
spatiality
anchorplacand transform
theirenvironment,
es at specificlocations,and prescribefactors
and actions,but also in tandemwithchanges
intheiractions,moods,ends,and projectsand
along withthe trajectoriesof theirlives.Of
course,it is a bit misleadingto speak of the
of places byactionsand factors
determination
as a "making"of socialspace. Humanlivesinopen a space ofplaces
trinsically
and constantly
withoutanyonehavingto makeit. Thisspace,
ofall otherformsof
moreover,isthecondition
making.Humanbeingsmaketheirown geogthattheirliveshave
raphywithinthegeography
alwaysalreadyopened forthem.
To close thissection,I will
SocialPhenomena.
use theaccountofsocialspace justelaborated
to analyzethe spatiality
of social phenomena.
is interrelated
Sincesocialreality
ongoinglives,
whatthereis to it is elementsof and interrelationsamonglives(whereby'elements'I mean
actions,factors,objects,places,and settings).
Social phenomenaare by definitionpartsor
aspectsof social reality.Theyconsist,accordi.e.,what
ingly,in elementsand interrelations,
thereis intheworldto suchphenomenaissets
of theseitems.
typeofsocialphenomThe mostprominent
whichare statesof
enon is social formations,
humancoexistence.(Forbriefremarkson the
socialstructures,
see
second mostprominent,
Schatzki1990.)Examplesare economies,wars,
and groups.Since theyare by
governments,
definition
theyconsistin
partsofsocialreality,
sets of elementsof and interrelations
among
lives.More specifically,
theyconsistin usually
of the sumdiscontinuoussubconfigurations
totaloforganizedplacesand settings,
together
withcollectionsof actions,factors,and interrelations,distributedamong places and setand collections
tings.These subconfigurations
657
usually
formnoncenteredmosaicsofnodesand
peripheries.
Noticethattheycan also coincide
and overlap.Itshouldbe pointedout thatexare eisocialformations
pressionsdesignating
ther:(1) namesforcombinationsof elements
e.g.,Americangovernment,
and interrelations,
Penguins;(2)types
English
economy,Pittsburgh
underwhichsuch combinationscan be subopsumed,e.g., racialprejudice,government
pression,mass hysteria;or (3) constructions
themselves
upon measuresof statesof affairs
in elementsand interrelations,
e.g.,
consisting
(forfurGrossNationalProduct,the multiplier
therdiscussion,
see Schatzki1988a).As thislist
suggests,the onlytermspermissiblein social
are those the use of whichdoes
investigation
moreto social
notimplythatthereis anything
lives.An exampleof
realitythan interrelated
termis 'socialrelation'as utian impermissible
and structural-functional
lized in manymarxist
accounts.
is a cutoutof social
Since a socialformation
it
reality
and thespacesthisrealityconstitutes,
spatiality
definedbyand as this
hasan inherent
cut:the distribution
of itsconstitutive
actions,
amonga parfactors,
places,and interrelations
ofplacesandsettings.
Note
ticularconfiguration
of a social formation
is also
thatthe spatiality
its spatiallocationin social reality.That is, a
socialformation
is locatedwhereitsconstituare (cf.Ruben
tiveelementsand interrelations
1985,ch. 2).
Spatial Explanation
Explanationin General
of explaOne prominentcharacterization
nationsis as answersto questionsofthe form,
or to questionsthatcan be recastwithoutloss
of inquisitory
intentin the form:Whyis itso?
withthisdefinitionis
One obvious difficulty
we call an
thatit does not cover everything
explanation,e.g., an explanationof a word's
meaning.Definingexplanationsas answersto
a typeof question,however,promotesan elbetween different
cogegant differentiation
insocialscience.Whileexnitiveachievements
planationsare answersto whyquestionsand
descriptionsanswersto queries of the form,
What happened?, interpretationsare responsesto requests,Whatdoes it mean?,and
658
Schatzki
Social Causality
By 'social causality'I mean the ways,apart
frommerelyphysical
processes,inwhichevents
bringaboutstatesofaffairs
and statesofaffairs3
and
andeventsinsocialreality.
(Forjustification
elaboration,see Schatzki1988b.)Causal transactionsinsociallifecanbe cataloguedintothree
by making
types:actionscause statesofaffairs
themhappen,statesofaffairs
cause actionsby
cause
inducing
peopletoact,andstatesofaffairs
whichfactorsgovern
actionsby determining
them.4I willreferto the thirdtypeof transactionas the"moldingofbehavior."Notethatall
threetypespertainto actionand eitheritsdeor consequences.
terminants
Foranyoneunfamiliar
withHumeanskeptiitis obviousthatactingis
cismabout causality,
are brought
one wayin whichstatesof affairs
about in sociallife.In cleaninga room,writing
a paper,or rakingleaves,a personintervenes
in the world,bringsabout changes,and experienceshim-or herselfmakingthingshappen. Thisformof causalityis so obviousthat
nothingmoreneed be said about it.
occurs
A second typeof causal transaction
Conwhenpeople respondto statesofaffairs.
sider a chain of actions,which is a series of
actionseach ofwhichis a responseto the pre-
659
660
Schatzki
are the
I claimthattheabove circumstances
onlyones in whichsocial phenomenaplaya
the mere
causalroleinsociallife.In particular,
fact that a response-inducingor behaviorhelpsconstimoldingactionor stateof affairs
tutea widersocialphenomenondoes notimply
thatthiswiderphenomenoncauses behavior.
help constituteinActionsand statesofaffairs
definitenumbersof social phenomena.So, if
the social phenomenaconstitutedby causally
efficaciousactionsand statesof affairswere
any givenacthemselvescausallyefficacious,
number
tionwouldbe caused byan indefinite
ofphenomena.Thisresultwouldofcourserenuseless.Fortunately,
derthenotionofcausality
the discussion in the previous paragraphs
thwartsthisconclusionby describingconditionsunderwhichwidersocialphenomenaare
causallyefficacious.
to cause
Itisstillpossibleforsocialformations
one another,but theydo so onlyby working
intheabovedescribedways.
individuals
through
causesanotherwhen
one formation
Simplifying,
to perform
in thesewaysit causes individuals
the
theactionsbringing
aboutand constituting
other.Juvenile
delinquencyinU.S.ghettos,for
mainstance,iscausedby,amongotherthings,
a hostileworld,easy drug
terialdeprivation,
because theseare
money,and flashylifestyles
among the centralphenomena(1) to which
and (2) through
youthrespondin performing
the experienceof whichis molded the perteenage
formanceof the actionsconstituting
delinquency.
The foregoingaccount of causalitycontrathetwoexplanatory
venesthoseaccompanying
tospatialscience.For"genmodelsSayeroffers
eralization"causalityimpliesuniversalsuccession:'a causes b' impliesthatthereis a law to
the effectthatphenomenaof a's typeare alwaysfollowedbyphenomenaofb's type.Withagainstthis
outgoingintodetails,myargument
view is thatcausalityexistswhen thingsbring
otherthings
about,andthewaysinwhichthings
are notlawbringthingsabout in socialreality
on theotherhand,
governed.For"abstraction,"
aboutofeventsbysets
isthebringing
causality
of abstract,mutually-influencing
generative
mechanisms.
Thisschoolofthoughtclaims,further(see Bhaskar1979,ch. 2), thatthe genersocialeventsarise
ativemechanisms
governing
fromthe propertiesof systemsof social relations(wheresocial relationsare not between
but betweensocialposiindividuals
particular
661
Types of Explanation in
Social Science
Social explanations are descriptions of the
features of social realityresponsible for social
phenomena. Since these features are causal
transactionsand the structureof intelligibility,
there are two basic types of explanation in social science: causal explanation and intelligibilityexplanation. The causal explanation of a social phenomenon documents the causal
transactionsbringingit about. An intelligibility
explanation of an action or set of actions lays
out the factorsgoverning it. In advocating intelligibility
explanations, I linkonto a tradition
stretchingat least from Dilthey that has opposed the hegemony of causal explanation in
social science. I do not, however, agree with
the view prevalentin thistradition,even among
some of its current members including Peter
Winch,CliffordGeertz, and Charles Taylor,that
causal explanation has littleor no role to play
in social investigation.In any case, intelligibility
explanations of wider social phenomena are
descriptionsof the factorsgoverningtheirconstitutiveactions. All explanations in social science should be mixes of explanations of these
two sorts.
Causal explanations of all aspects of social
realityare the same in form:descriptionsof the
causal transactionsresponsible forthe actions,
factors,objects, and places constitutingthe explanandum.Of course, mostsocial phenomena,
e.g., stock market crashes, Napoleon's rise to
power, suicide rates,and modern Westerncapitalismare composed of extremelylarge numbers of components. Even ifitwere possible to
describe exhaustivelythe complex nexuses of
causal transactionsgiving rise to these components, such descriptions could not dissolve
perplexities about why the phenomena concerned exist(no one could take in the descriptions). The practical task of causal explanation
in social science, consequently, is to fashion
overviewsofcausal nexuses thatcondense these
nexuses into surveyable form. In carryingout
this task,an investigatormay use several stratagems. For instance, she mightidentifywhich
of the phenomenon's components are typical,
central,distinctive,or constitutiveof itsorigin,
and aim to document the causal transactions
responsible forthese alone. She mightalso describe only those causal transactions(or types
662
Schatzki
thereof)whichtypically
or centrallybrought
about the phenomenonor those of itscomponentsupon whichshe focuses.In outline,
the procedureof constructing
causal explanationscontainsthe followingstages:the investigator
mustfirstidentify
the components
of the phenomenonunder explanationand
judge whichof these to focus on. She must
then uncoverthe actionsand statesof affairs
responsibleforthe membersof the subset.Finally,in orderto constructan overviewofthe
causalnexusresponsibleforthephenomenon,
she mustjudge5which of these actionsand
statesofaffairs
are universal,
typical,or salient.
The entireprocessis hampered,of course,by
limitedinformation;
and it is not necessaryeitherto carryout completelya priorstagebeforeexecutinga subsequentone or to proceed
throughthesestagesintheorderoutlined.An
willinsteadusuallymovebackand
investigator
forthamongthem.
Social formations
can be cited in the causal
ofa socialphenomenonwhenever
explanation
theyare eitherwhatpeople respondto inperor that throughthe experienceof
forming,
whichis molded the performance
of,the actionsconstituting
the phenomenon.Whether
theyare cited depends on the judgmentsof
typicality,
saliency,centrality,
and so on with
whichoverviewsare constructed.Since social
phenomenahave no further
role in causality,
theyhave no additionalrole in causal explanation.Inparticular,
forreasonssketchedinthe
previoussection,the mere factthatcausally
efficacious
actionsandstatesofaffairs
helpconstitutea social phenomenondoes not imply
thatthatphenomenonis itselfcausallyefficacious.Thisdoes notimplythatsocialphenomena playa negligibleroleincausalexplanation.
On the contrary,
people oftenrespondto socialstatesofaffairs
andare moldedbythesocial
phenomenathroughwhichtheylive.
ofactionsand sets
Intelligibility
explanations
thereofare descriptions
of theaction-governingfactorsstructuring
them.When the explanandumis a social phenomenoncomposed of
numerous actions, the investigatorshould
which of its constitutive
identify
actionsare
central,typical,or distinctive
and focusupon
the factorsgoverningthemalone. Then,as in
thecase ofcausalexplanation,
she shouldfashionan overviewofthesefactors,
judgingwhich
of themare essential,salient,or distinctive.
In
tionto thebehavior[i.e.,actions]ofindividuals
and groupswithinthe laborforce,at thesame
timeas it allowsan examinationof the environmental
contextto whichtheyare responding"(162).As thisquotationsuggests,the distinctionbetween behavioraland structural
explanationsis notan either-or:completeexofpeople's livesmustcombineboth
planations
approaches.Thisis obviousfromthe perspec-
663
664
Schatzki
nomenaare notthestatesofaffairs
thatdeterminetheactionsof legislators
or planners/executivesbut,instead,whatin turndetermines
these statesof affairs.
One typeof judgment
requiredofinvestigators
intheconstruction
of
explanationsis decidinghow farback in the
indefinitely
longand complexnexusesof determining
phenomenalie the mostsalientdeterminants
oftheexplanandum.
Identifying
what
determinesthe statesofaffairs
responsiblefor
legislators'
and planners'actions,however,is a
taskofa kindwithidentifying
thedeterminants
of any social phenomenon.If,for instance,
plannersrespondto a certaineconomicstate
of affairs,
one accountsforthisstateof affairs,
and perhapstherewithexplainsthe planners'
decisions,byanalyzingit intoitscomponents
an overviewof the nexusesof
and fashioning
forthese
causality
and intelligibility
responsible
components.
Just
as explanations
ofspatialphenomenaare
ofa kindwiththoseofsocialphenomenagenuses of spatial
erally,the possibleexplanatory
properties
are identicalwiththoseofotheraspects of social reality.As discussed,thereare
can
fourwaysinwhichfeaturesofsocialreality
determineand be used to explainotherfeatures:(a) by actingand bringingthese other
features
about,(b) byinducingresponses,(c) by
being somethinglived throughwhich molds
behavior,and (d) by being the object of the
factorsgoverning
action.Actionsalone realize
(a). Spatialphenomena,likeall otherfeatures
of social life,can determineactionand social
phenomenain ways(b)-(d).
Forinstance,a plannerdecides to locate an
officebuildingina givenarea ofa citybecause
a particular
pool oflaborisfoundthere.Insuch
case,a spatialaspectofa socialphenomenonofa particular
theconcentration
kindofworker
in a certainlocale-determinesbehavioras a
it.Spatialphenomenacan also
factorgoverning
determine
actionsbyinducingthem,e.g.,when
in
decide to locatemedicalfacilities
legislators
a particular
area of a statein responseto the
as reported
ofsuchfacilities
spatialdistribution
in a newlyreleasedstudy.Finally,
spatialphenomenadetermine
socialaffairs
bymoldingbehaviorwhenlivedspatialaspectsofphenomena
affecthow people act. Manifoldresearchdiscussesthislastphenomenon,e.g.,Oswald'spioneeringstudy(1970) of how the designand
locationof roomsand objects,togetherwith
the resulting
setupof placesand paths,affects
patientbehaviorin mentalasylums.
These cases demonstratethat space can
"makea difference"
to sociallife.Sayer(1985)
iswrongto maintain
thatitisthecausalpowers
of whatfillsspace, and not also space per se,
thatmake a difference.
When causal powers
are modeledon the powersofan actor,thisis
of course true.When, however,we thinkof
causalpoweras theabilityto induceresponses
or to mold behavior,and acknowledgeadditionallythatspatialpropertiescan be somethingout ofthe knowledgeofwhicha person
performs
a particular
action,itisclearthatsuch
properties,
andnotonlythoseofwhatfills
space,
help determinesocial life.Sayer'spointgoes
through
onlyifcausalpowerisconstruedmerely
as the capacityto open and constrictpossibilitiesand ifspace is conceivedtoo narrowly
as
a powerlessset of relationsamongthe entities
whichdelimitpossibilities.
Itshouldbe notedthattheactionsand states
of affairsthat determinesocial phenomena
themselvesexhibitspatialpropertiesand configurations.
The conditionsunderwhichthese
propertiesand configurations
explain social
phenomenaarethesameas thoseunderwhich
anyaspectof socialrealitydoes. Suppose legislatorsin stateA determinewelfarepayments
partlyon the basisofthe livingconditionsand
job opportunities
of the state'spoorestresidents.Althoughlivingconditionsand job opportunitieshave spatialpropertiesand form
spatialpatterns,
itdoes notfollow,forreasons
parallelto ones discussedabove, that these
propertiesand patternsare partof the explanationof the state'swelfarepayments.
In thiscontext,it is also worthnotingthat,
sincethe phenomenathatdelimitpossibilities
are distributed
oversocialreality,
the possibilitiesopen to people varyfromplace to place.
Forinstance,
foran individual
withspecificsorts
of skills,experience,and knowledge,job opportunitiesare partlydelimitedby available
meansof transportation,
by where particular
sortsof jobs are available,and by what employersat these locales mightdo when confrontedwithpotentialemployeeswiththese
characteristics.
Spatialvariationin job opportunitiesforworkerswiththese characteristics
mightthenbe explainedby the layoutof the
transportation
systemand the different
states
ofaffairs
localesand regions,
that,in different
determineemployerpractices.
665
Sociospatial Connectedness
This section furtherconcretizes my claims
about causalityand explanation by considering
three concepts of sociospatial connectedness.
The firstis a notion of spatial determination
advanced by abstract realism. This school (see
Sayer 1982, 1984) argues thatabstractstructures
govern action. A particularlyclear example
where the structuresconcerned are spatial is
found in Urry(1985). Urrydescribes six types
of spatial division of labor, including regional
specialization,regionaldispersal,and threesorts
of functionalseparation, and then writes:
As we havealreadynotedwe shouldnotanalyze
a givenarea purelyas the productofa singleform
ofthespatialdivisionof labour.To do so, as Sayer
pointsout, is to 'collapseall the historical
results
of severalinteracting
"spatialdivisionsof labor"
intoa rathermisleading
termwhichsuggestssome
simpleunitary
empiricaltrend.'Rather,anysuch
area is 'economically'the overlappingand interdependentproductof a numberof these spatial
divisions
oflabourandattendant
forms
ofindustrial
restructuring
(39;theSayerquotationisfromSayer
1982,80).
The term 'product' is meant literally:the industrial state of any particular region is generated by these divisions. EarlierUrrywrites:
the social world ... is comprised of four-dimen-
sionaltime-spaceentities;
whichbearcomplexand
intime-space
interrelations
with
mutually
modifying
each other;and these have the consequence of
of socialactiviproducingempiricaldistributions
tieswithintimeand space as a resultofthe partial
and variablerealisationof the respectivecausal
powersof theseentities(22).
Can we interpretthese claims compatiblywith
the determinationof social affairsby nexuses
of causalityand intelligibility?
Consider the "functionalseparation" among
management/researchand development in the
"center," skilled labor in old manufacturing
centers,and unskilledlabor in the "periphery."
Interpretthis spatial division of labor as a distributionof differentbundles of activities,factors,and objects among differentsortsof places and paths in differentlocales and regions.
Such an interpretationis necessarylestthis"abstract" structure be disconnected from the
causality and intelligibilitydetermining social
life.Now, such a distributionhas no directgenerativepower in the mannerhumanaction does.
But itprobablydoes determinesocial phenomena at least by being something in response to
666
Schatzki
developmentoftheactionsand statesofaffairs
productionis inturndecapitalist
constituting
It
terminedby aspects of such distributions.
are metquite
seemsto methattheseconditions
manoftenin economic life.Profit-pursuing
agers designand otherwisehelp bringabout
and financial
the locationpoliciesof industrial
thatcreatecores and peripheries;
institutions
reand how theyconstructthese institutions
flectseconomic and politicalcore-periphery
inlabor
suchas spatialvariations
statesofaffairs
pools.
A thirdconcept of sociospatialconnectedness is spatialdialectics.It is kinto the notion
ofsociospatialdialecticsbutinone ofitsforms
space intothedialectic.Richard
bringsphysical
Peet definesspatialdialecticsas "the nature
movementof the spatialrelaof the historical
tions between environmentally-embedded
suchas that
processes"(1981,107).Distinctions
and environmentallybetweenspatialrelations
embedded processessuggestthat Peet confrom
distinct
assomething
struesspatialrelations
social processes. His claim that we need to
autono"grantto spatialrelationsa relatively
inpartofitsown,with
mousposition,a history
a dialectic in part of its own .. ." (108) only
Accordingto Neil
thatimpression.
strengthens
Smith,Peet erectsa rigid,nevertranscended
"dichotomy"between space and social processes(1981,112; cf.1979,376).
When Peet speaksof spatialrelations,however,he meanssocial relationsand processes
occurringover physicalspace. Thisis evident
onlyinan earlierarticle(1978)wherehe writes
that"spatialrelationsare actuallyrelationsbetween componentsof the social formations
embedded into geographicallocalities..
from
aretheflowofinvestment
(151).Examples
to "periph"worldcentralsocial formations"
and thereturnflowofsurplus
eralformations"
are understoodas
value.Whenspatialrelations
over space, spatial
social relationstranspiring
dialecticsbecomes the developmentof the
connections
over-physical-space-transpiring
between differentsocial phenomena, the
acrossspace betweendif"complexinterplay
. . ." (152).
ferentversionsofa wholeformation
unlikeSoja's,dialecticsdoes
Inthisformulation,
and
betweenspatiality
notconcerninteraction
social phenomenabut the evolutionof social
cum spatialrelations.And the onlysocial-spatialdichotomyPeet need countenanceis one
SpatialOntologyand Explanation
betweensocialprocessesandthephysical
space
in whichtheyoccur.
PaceSmith,thisdichotomyis perfectly
legitimateand in no need of transcendence.Even
ifsocialphenomenaare partlyphysicaland accordinglyhelp constitutephysicalspace reladifPeetcanstilllegitimately
tionally
construed,
ferentiate
between the space constitutedby
physical
objectsotherthanpeople and thehuwithinit. Ifphysical
manactivitiestranspiring
space istreatedas absolute,thenthereisclearly
nothingwrongwiththe dichotomybetween
space and society.Onlyifone objects,as Smith
of a physicalspace
does, to the incorporation
fromsocialprocessesintothe analysis
distinct
ofsociallife(forhim,the space relevantto social analysisis the spatialpropertiesof matter
understoodas use-values[1981,115]),can one
accuse Peet of a needless,thoughnot illegitiItseemsto me,thatthis
mate,dichotomization.
we wantto retain.Justas there
is a dichotomy
is a sociospatialdialecticbetween social and
spatialphenomena,so, too, is thereone between social phenomenaand physicalspace,
factforsocial
and thisis a not-inconsequential
existence.
Peet does, however,advance one falsedichotomy:that between social relationsand
processesqua abstractentitiesand theirconcretespatialmanifestations.
He differentiates,
forexample,betweenthe abstractprocessof
the build-upof contradictions
between the
forcesand relationsof productionand the
"geographicalspecificities"this process assumesin particular
geographicallocalities.He
even (1977,254) characterizesthisdistinction
as one between social processes and spatial
processes,e.g., the social contradictionbetweencapitaland laborand thespatialcontradictionbetweenthefirst
andthirdworlds.Now,
thereis a perfectly
belegitimatedistinction
tween a type of process(or relation)and its
varyinginstances.It is a mistake,however,to
treata typeofprocessas an abstractentityand
itsinstancesas spatialmanifestations
ofthisentity.One reasonforthisis thattypesof processes,unlikethe abstractprocessesPeet enareconcepts.Theydeterminesociallife
visions,
only when they are factorsgoverningwhat
people do. Peet is wrong,therefore,to aver
thattheabove-mentioned
abstractprocesslies
atthebottomofhistorical
development.There
are no abstractsocial processes with causal
social life,onlyideas of such
powersvis-A-vis
667
Conclusion
This paper has outlined an individualistaccount of social spatialityand spatial explanation. Social realityis interrelatedindividuallives.
This conception differsfromprevious formsof
individualismby expanding the "individualist
level" beyond actions and mental states to include a wider range of items constitutiveof
human life:objects, places, settings,a range of
action-governingfactors,and a numberofcausal
transactions.What makes thisaccount individualist is its claim that these items provide the
"material" out of which social realityand phenomena consist. Of course, the account is in
one sense nonindividualistsince it maintains
thatsocial realityis interrelated,not individual,
lives.I claim,however,(1) thatsocial realitycontains nothing that does not consist in features
of interrelatedindividuallives,and (2) that the
above items,into which most featuresof nexuses of lives resolve,are forthe most partcharacteristics of, and identified through a phenomenological analysis of, individual life.
Combined, these two claims justifythe label
'individualist,'thoughadmittedlythisusage differsfromprevious ones.
The above itemsalso provide the "material"
out of which the spatialityof social realityconsists.Social space is a distributionof such items
among places and paths, which automatically
happens along withinterrelatedlivesand which
underlies both the objective dimensions of social spatialityand the constructionof the built
environment.Social phenomena, moreover,as
slices of the nexus of lives, are spatial entities
that consist in distributionsof the above items
among discontinuous configurationsof places
and paths.
Hence, to explain a social phenomenon, including itsspatialfeatures,is to explain a certain
collection of such items. Social explanation in
general, and spatial explanation in particular,is
inherentlyan account of action, its determinants,and itsproducts. This individualismdoes
not implythat social phenomena such as institutions, economic processes, and wars play a
668
Schatzki
to
mustsearchforiftheyare rightly
vestigators
role to space. Ifa sciascribean explanatory
entistsuspectsthatspatialstatesof affairslie
behindofficelocation,he or she mustuncover
governingand
the factorsand statesof affairs
causingofficelocationdecisions.For,spatial
of office
willbe determinants
statesof affairs
locationonlyiftheyare numberedamongthese
(or are whatin turn
factorsand statesofaffairs
applyto
thelatter).Similarremarks
determines
theexplanationofspatialphenomena.It is imthe
portantto pointout that,sinceuncovering
phenomenathatcause or governaction requiresa graspofactors'concepts,knowledge,
of spatialexplaand moods,the construction
nationsrequiresconsiderablequalitativeand
research.
interpretive
I mightindicatetwoadditionalareas
Finally,
of furtherresearch.First,I have said nothing
about power.I believe,however,thatmyaccount offersa perspectivefromwhichto anbetweenpower
alyzethe mutualconditioning
thistopic
and space, and I plan to investigate
in futurework.7Second, I have ignoredthe
and economic "proactual social, historical,
cesses" responsibleforthe varyingarraysof
lives
places and pathsopened by interrelated
societies.Inat different
timesand in different
theseprocessesisan empiricaltask,
vestigating
out ofwhichwouldintroducethe
thecarrying
and cultural
as yetmissingelementsof history
variationintomyaccount.
Acknowledgments
severalanonI wouldliketo thankJohnPaulJones,
and the Editorof the Annalsfor
ymousreviewers,
commentson earlierversionsofthispaper.I would
also liketo thankJohnPicklesforassistancein preparingthe finalmanuscript.
Notes
1. It mightbe helpfulto explain that phrases such as
"human lives open a nexus of places" mean that
certain featuresof human lifeare responsible for
there being arraysof places, anchored at collections of objects, at and amid which human activity
takes place (this idea is discussed below). For human activityor lifeto "occupy" a place, moreover,
means basicallythat activityoccurs at that place.
Forexample, a place forsleeping is occupied when
someone goes to sleep on the object, say, a bed,
at which that place is anchored.
The idea of space as an opening of places for
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
669
References
Agnew, J. 1987. Place and politics:The geographical
mediationof stateand society.Boston: Allen and
Unwin.
Atwood, M. 1987. The handmaid'stale. New York:
Random House.
Bachelard, G. 1964. Thepoeticsofspace, tr.M. Jolas.
New York: Orion.
Bhaskar, R. 1979. The possibilityof naturalism.Atlanta Highlands: Humanities Press.
* 1986. Scientificrealismand human emancipation. London: Verso.
Bollnow, 0. 1963. Mensch und Raum. Stuttgart:
Verlag W. Kohlhammer.
* 1971. Lived space. In Readingsin existential
phenomenology,ed. N. Lawrence and D. O'Connor, pp. 178-86. Englewood Cliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Buttimer,A. 1976. Grasping the dynamismof the
lifeworld.Annals of the Associationof American
Geographers66(2):277-92.
Cosgrove, D. 1984. Social formationand symbolic
landscape. London: Croom Helm.
Entrikin,J. N. 1991. The betweennessof place: Towardsa geographyofmodernity.Baltimore:Johns
Hopkins UniversityPress.
Gatrell, A. 1983. Distanceand space: A geographical
perspective.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Giddens, A. 1979. Centralproblemsin social theory.
Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
* 1984. The constitutionof society. Berkeley:
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Gregory, D. 1989. Presences and absences: Timespace relationsand structurationtheory.In Social
theoryof modernsocieties:AnthonyGiddens and
his critics,ed. D. Held and J.B. Thompson, pp.
185-214. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Gregson, N. 1986. On dualityand dualism:The case
of structurationand time geography. Progressin
Human Geography10(2):184-205.
Hagerstrand, T. 1970. What about people in regional science? Papersand Proceedingsof theRegional Science Association24:7-21.
1973. The domain of human geography. In
Directionsingeography,ed. R. J.Chorley,pp. 6787. London: Methuen.
1975. Space, time, and human conditions.
In Dynamic allocation of urban space, ed. A.
Karlqvist,L. Lundqvist,and F. Snickars,pp. 3-14.
Lexington,MA: LexingtonBooks.
Harvey, D. 1989. The condition of postmodernity.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Heidegger, M. 1971. Building,dwelling,and thinking. In Poetry,language, and thought,trans. and
ed. Albert Hofstadter,pp. 143-62. New York:
Harper and Row.
. 1978. Being and Time, trans. John Mac-
670
Schatzki
11/90,revised5/91,accepted6/91.
Submitted