Comp. by: LElumalai Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_R Date:2/4/09
Time:21:12:31 Filepath:H:/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-9781405132879/appln/3B2/re-
vises/9781405132879_4_R-new.3d
may affect the ways in which subjectivity is
produced, as well as shaping the political possi-
bilities associated with rights (Marston, 2004b).
As Pratt (2004) argues, spatialrepresenta-
tioncan be used to close rights down as well
as open them up. Representations of the
spaces of thebody, the public–private divide
(seeprivate and public spheres) and the
nationcan all serve to delimit or deny rights.
And yet, Pratt argues, activists seeking to
advance rights-based claims in defence of
Filipino domestic workers within Canada have
put other spatial representations – such as
scale, internationalhuman rightsand the
‘empty space’ of liberal universalism – to pro-
ductive work. At an extreme, the peripheral
and exclusionary locations to which marginal-
ized groups have been assigned can also be
used as a space from which to contest and
challenge the ordering of rights (Chouinard,
2001; Peake and Ray, 2001).
The relation between rights and space takes
on a particular dimension when it comes to
public space. Public space is historically
predicated on particular and related forms of
territorial exclusion, with only certain subjects
being deemed appropriate rights-bearers in
relation, in part, to the degree to which they
were imagined as fully formed citizens (see
citizenship). Yet public space, Don Mitchell
(2003, p. 29) argues, is a site made through
political struggle, as outsider groups, such as
women, the working class and ethnic minor-
ities, have fought their way into the public
realm. Such a struggle necessarily entails
rights. Again, rights can be used to deny public
space to certain populations or can be used as
a tool to pry public space, and thus, citizen-
ship, open. Both rights and space, then, are
said to be co-produced: social action ‘always
operates simultaneously to influence the pro-
duction of law and the production of space’
(Mitchell, 2003a).
It is because of the political valence of
rights, and their spatiality, that geographers
have become interested in rights in more than
a descriptive sense. Lefebvre’s (1996) call for a
‘right to the city’ has been invoked by those
who seek to articulate a normative vision of
space and social justice (Harvey, 2000b).
However, much of this work, while interesting
and even inspirational, remains under-theor-
ized, and fails to engage the broader critical
literature on rights, their politics and their
geographies. nkbSuggested readings
Marx (1975); Purcell (2002).risk In the first, technical, sense, risk refers
to the probability of a known event (which
may be a cost or a benefit) occurring. Such
probabilities assume that causes and conse-
quences can be determined, mapped and pre-
dicted. This is a highly rationalist endeavour
characteristic ofmodernityand a belief in
controllability. Risk in this sense is about
knowing the world, and is therefore not sub-
ject to uncertainty or indeterminacy. In order
for such a probability to be calculated, the risk
must be first identified (e.g. failure of an air-
craft engine, the development of lung cancer,
leakage of radioactive waste). The pathways to
the event also need to be identified, and the
likelihood of such pathways and events occur-
ring needs to be calculated. The latter will
often require some element of technical know-
ledge, but also an understanding of the social
and institutional relations that surround a risk
(e.g. the ability of a regulatory body to police
possible risk pathways). In certain circumstan-
ces, probabilities can be calculated from past
events (the chances of developing lung cancer
from smoking can be estimated from popula-
tion data). In other circumstances, where
events are uncommon or where new technolo-
gies mean that there are few if any precedents,
determining risk becomes more and more con-
tentious. Not only are the occurrences or
manifest dangers/benefits difficult to second-
guess, but the pathways to them may be
impossible to imagine prior to the event, and
the institutions responsible for regulating
behaviour may not be sufficiently established
or experienced. Meanwhile, given the geo-
graphical, material and social complexities of
everything from taking a drug to building a
nuclear power station, the ability to calculate
risk becomes ever more fraught with uncer-
tainty and indeterminacy. The growing sense
of the non-calculability of risks feeds in to a
second, more qualitative, sense of risk. Here,
risk takes on a meaning that has more akin
with uncontrollability and danger. Most
effectively taken up in Beck’s Risk society
(1992) and Mary Douglas’ anthropology of
risk and blame (Douglas, 1992), risk becomes
a contestable issue in society at large. All
calculations become liable to re-calculation
or to rendering non-calculable. Controversies
over risk become more and more common as
various individuals and bodies contest each
other’s estimation of events and pathways,
and dispute the ability of responsible or
regulatory bodies to shepherd technologies,
processes and markets in such a way as to
minimize risk (the ongoing battles over theGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_R-new Final Proof page 657 2.4.2009 9:12pmRISK