SPACE, SCALE AND TIMEFollowing the suggestion of Horvath, Howitt
(2001b) argues that five foundational concepts
underpin the discipline of geography: space–time,
place, nature, culture and scale. Human geogra-
phers have played a leading role in reconceptualiz-
ing dominant concepts of space. For example, Soja
seeks ‘to spatialize the historical narrative, to
attach to durèe an enduring critical human geogra-
phy’ (1989: 1). Blunt and Rose argue that space is
not a neutral given but that ‘space itself could ... be
interpreted in multiple ways but only after its con-
struction in the minds of those perceiving it’ (1994:
12). Massey (for example, 1984) also eloquently
explains that neither the spatial, nor the social, nor
the natural should or can be theorized indepen-
dently. These domains co-construct each other.
They are coequal components of any sophisticated
social scientific analytical framework.
In challenging notions of space as a non-active
element in social relations, cultural geographers
have actively investigated how people construct
spaces, places, boundaries and relationships. It is
not that spatial boundaries and relationships are
illusionary or do not exist. Rather, it is necessary to
recognize that ‘the material and ideological are co-
constitutive’ (Jacobs, 1996: 5). Imaginary and real
boundaries and relationships around, within and
between spaces and places are crucial in under-
standing power relationships and consequently are
vital in imagining and realizing relevant and con-
textualized processes in specific circumstances.
Moore argues for a vision which ‘insists on joining
the cultural politics of place to those of identity’
rather than ‘viewing geographically specific sites
as the stage – already fully-formed constructions
that serve as settings for action – for the perfor-
mance of identities’ (1998: 347).
Spatial, cultural and natural processes and rela-
tionships are always constituted in time across and
between scales. Howitt (1998; also forthcoming)
discusses the multidimensional and simultaneous
interactions that define and are defined within and
between spaces. Drawing upon a philosophy of
internal relations, Howitt argues the ‘rigidity of
many categorical definitions is unsustainable ...
Boundaries which previously separated clearly
independent, even mutually exclusive, conceptual
categories have been transgressed’ (1993: 34). He
emphasizes that ‘scale, like all spatial relation-
ships, is embedded in the dynamics of social life
rather than imposed externally’ (1993: 39).
Relationships are contextualized across space,
between places, across and between times, within
and between groups and territories. This points to
a commitment to radical contextualization – acommitment to taking context seriously as an
ontological element rather than treating it as a
superficially contingent element. The practical
impact of radical contextualization is that cultural
research must both investigate and debate, rather
than either assume or ignore, the implications of
geographical, historical, cultural, political and
environmental context.
Despite the wide acknowledgement of
space–time as an integrated concept (for example,
Massey, 1984), geographers’ debate of ideas
about space has rarely been matched by similar
interest in concepts of time. Time continues to be
widely seen as a separate category, often being
left for historians to explore. However time, like
space, has been constructed in Eurocentric
epistomologies on the basis that the world can be
seen as it really is. Judeo-Christian and scientific
discourses represent time through a time-line on
which arrows point to the future, constructing a
linear notion of time. Ideas of evolution and
social Darwinism reinforce this as a definable
progress – an inevitable movement towards a
singular future. Notions of progress and develop-
ment, cause and effect contribute towards this
taken-for-granted sensation:
Linear time underlies our most cherished notions of
‘progress’ – our collective faith in the inexorable, incre-
mental refinement of human society, technology, and
thought. (Knudtson and Suzuki, 1992: 143)
The discipline of history makes it ‘possible to
recover an absolute truth of what happened in
history. History is not a story told by the present,
it is a fait accompli, which we need carefully to
uncover’ (Christie, 1992: 2). Carter (1987: xiv)
critiques histories based on and contributing to a
notion of linear bound time. He argues that this
type of history replaces spatial events with a
historical stage whereby it ‘is not the historian
who stages events, weaving them together to
form a plot, but History itself’. This conceptually
separates space and time, and:
[T]he fact that where we stand and how we go is history
is not recognised. In a theatre of its own design,
history’s drama unfolds; the historian is an impartial
onlooker, simply repeatingwhat happened ... Such
history is a fabric woven of self-reinforcing illusions
[placed within the hall of mirrors]. (1987: xv)LANGUAGE, LANDSCAPE AND
MEANINGLanguage reflects, shapes and limits how
humans understand the world around us. It
provides the building blocks of ontology and it560 SPACES OF KNOWLEDGE3029-ch31.qxd 03-10-02 11:10 AM Page 560