Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Metropolis 347

I have a couple questions about two of the articles from a few weeks ago. I was just going over them to try to answer some of the study questions and I got a little confused over some of it. In any case, here are my questions and any thoughts that anyone has would be much appreciated!

1. I am unsure of the precise nature of the link between the idea of space and the effects of globalization in Saskia Sassen's 2nd article (Whose City Is It?). She talks about "economy of space" and "spaces of post-collonialism" etc but do these refer to the definition of "space" that we read about in Auge's article? Is it in reference to space in the 'anthropological sense'? or in a broader sense? Maybe she made these distinctions in the article and I just mixed them up but either way it would be good to know!

2. Sassen's article talks about "valorization" (overvalorization/devalorization) but I'm not sure what is meant by that. Again, maybe she explained it and I missed it...

Any ideas?

Thanks so much!


Blogger Barker said...

Great questions. Can you provide the page numbers so we can see the specific contexts you're referring to?

2/08/2006 11:28 PM  
Blogger JessicaCharisse said...

Hi professor Barker,

The clearest example in the readings, I think, is in Sassen's second article, page 191, the last paragraph on the page. She talks about the space "constituted by the global grid of cities" (pg 191).
Based on the prevailing theme in the article of globalization in the context of the global city, I'm thinking that what she means by 'space' here is an area in which a new type of politic develops, labour processes are redefined, new and competing claims on the city are created and so on. In addition, she writes about certain of these processes of globalization being "place-centred" (in that same paragraph).
Are we assuming that 'place' and 'space' are not the same thing here? I guess this is where my question comes in. If I am right about her use of the word 'space', where does the idea of 'place' fit in, in the context of her article? Does she mean that these places (the global cities) and the things that make them places, as opposed to spaces, are what constitute this new 'space'? Am I confusing the two terms? I hope this makes sense! Thanks so much

2/12/2006 7:57 PM  
Blogger Barker said...

Okay, I see what you're gettting at. As I read it, Sassen's space refers to the medium in which globalizing relations among cities are established. The main point is that this space is expanding in unprecedented ways. Within this space there are places or centres that anchor these relations, namely, global cities.

As for de Certeau, his distinction between space and place is merely meant to highlight the fact that places come into being through movements through space. We are used to thinking of places as being primary and movement as being secondary (i.e. being movement between places). He wants to show the other side: that places themselves are constituted through movements through space in particular trajectories. A mosque is a centre of religious life at least partly because of the way it is incorporated into people's repeated movements to and from the 'place' of the mosque.

2/14/2006 12:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home