Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

By theorizing the concepts of “space” and “place,” geographers, sociologists, anthropologists, planners, psychologists, and several different kinds of specialized scholars have tried to bring within their fields the recognition that the relationship between ourselves, the others, and the surrounding environment is a crucial one. Things, such as objects, occur in space in the same way that social relations do. To put it in other words, situations take place, or, to follow one of the major theorists of this topic, we consider “places not as points or areas on maps, but as integrations of space and time; as spatio-temporal events” (Massey 2005, 130, emphasis in original). Consumption as a social practice occurs precisely within places, some of them specifically devoted to the multiple facets of consuming, like restaurants or shopping centers, but it is also embedded in spatial terms because place, in itself, is a commodity. People buy, trade, use, recycle, destroy, or build places. Consumer culture may be then considered, above all, a culture of consuming (within) places. Before reviewing the most recent and relevant issues in spaces and places, this entry briefly retraces the role played by the former in the history of thought, since this category is neither new nor objective.

A Brief Overview of Space in Social Thought

The recognition of a dimension called “space” and of a multiplicity of locales variously called “places” is far from being recent in social thought. Aristotle, for instance, considered space as the finite bound of the bodily extensions, the sum of the embodied experience of reality, whereas the advent of scientific epistemology in modern thinking led Isaac Newton, and later Immanuel Kant, to define an absolute space both as a matter of reality and as an a priori category of the mind. The phenomenological tradition carried by Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty also forcefully insisted on the space as one of the main structures explaining the experience of “being-in-the-world” of people.

Within the philosophical traditions of those who paid a constant attention to spaces and places, Marxism holds a significant role. If one considers The Communist Manifesto, the references to the uneven spatial development of capitalism are constant and relevant:

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. (Marx and Engels 1952,

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading