E.W. Soja-Keeping Space Open

8/3/2019 E.W. Soja-Keeping Space Open

1/7

Review: Keeping Space OpenAuthor(s): Edward W. SojaSource: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 89, No. 2 (Jun., 1999), pp.348-353Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American GeographersStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2564263 .

Accessed: 30/03/2011 14:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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 [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. andAssociation of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAnnals of the Association of American Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaghttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2564263?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2564263?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaghttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis


2/7

348 BookReview orumthroughheentire ook, nd t goes ll thewayintohisontology.And, inally,heresa "little it fBaudrillard."Soja claims e s"a late ddition"ndworks ardto insert hecontroversialrench hilosopherinto the aterphasesof Thirdspace.las, Sojashoots imselfn thefoot:Baudrillard'soncep-tion f"simulacrum"ffectivelyemolishesnynotion fThirdspacerom heoutset, iven hatFirst nd Secondand Thirdspace ow get col-lapsed nto some nonsensical otion f hyper-reality. hat s efts an ncapacityo distinguishbetween hethreedifferent oments f Soja'searlier utlined rialectics,ndpresumablypis-temology ould owdissolvento ntology,r sthatthe otherway around?Meanwhile,whatkind fpoliticsemainsntactfweareunable odistinguishetween eal and imagined paces?Soundstome thatwithout guiding rincipleseparatingealityrom antasy, lot ofpeoplecouldgethurt. The radicalpolitics f cloud-cuckoo-land?)ndeed, newondersn the endwhat ort fpolitics d Soja himselfsespousinginThirdspace?hat ort fpoliticsemainsftereverything as been decentred nd decon-structednddisruptednddestabilized,hifted

off nto heblurryever-neverandofreal-and-imagined arginality?owcan anybodyct n aspacethatdefies ny definitionalr locationalanchoring,rwhereheres no real ubstancergrounding?his maybe Ed Soja's world, heworld f n on-line ransnationalcademic. utformarginaleoplewhomight ant ut ofmar-ginality,homight ant pieceof hepie n theFirstspace,t all sounds athermake-believe.nthe final nalysis-torevert o an olderwis-dom-the realworld fpractical olitics ndtransformativelliance uildinglways ets ivedandacted ut ntheFirstspace.hat saworld frightnd wrong,f truthnd falsity,f ife nddeath,of dogmatismnd tanks, f demos ndnightsticks.here t is often ither/or,nd nothirdolution s possible r permissible.et uslingern theFirstspacewhile onger et: herewegreet ou scomrades.ReferencesLefebvre,enri.976. he urvivalfCapitalism:e-productionf heRelationsfProduction.ondon:Allison Busby.

Keeping paceOpenEdwardW SojaDepartmentfUrban lanning,choolofPublic olicynd Social ResearchUniversityfCalifornia,osAngeles

I have always elieved hat good, onstruc-tivelyriticalookreview oeswell eyondum-marizing he contents nd offering simplethumbs-upr -down pinion nthebook's ver-all quality.t aims t achieving balanced ndstimulatingialogue etweenhereviewer'swnpersonalake n the ubjectmatternd he ointsofviewpresentednthewrittenext. his doesnotmean hat raise nd riticismregivenqualtime and weight,ike some television ebateshow.Nor s tnecessaryhat he riticalssess-ment e confinednly owhat semphasizednthe ext t hand, or ome f hebest eviewsrecreative laborationsfthereviewer's ositionandperspectiven ssues hatmay eperipheralto those fthebook's uthor. he three riticalreviews fThirdspaceucceed o some xtent nopeningpsuch balanced nd nformativeia-

logue,nd thankhe eviewersor heirimendeffort.ach raises ey ssues nd argumentse-rivingromhe eviewer'swn articularerspec-tive on contemporary patial theoryandtheorizinghat either avenot dealtwith de-quatelynThirdspacerperhaps ave oo xuber-antly verstatednmy patializingeal.To varyingegrees, owever,hecritical ia-logueopenedup becomes nproductivelyide-trackednto rbitrarilyefinedrenas fdebatethat eem obe more elatedothe areer rajec-toriesndpersonalntellectualxperiencesf hereviewershan o anythinghavewritten.eem-inglynspiredoo iterallyy hose oststructural-ist rgumentsbout he death f he uthor,"tleast wo f he eviewerslunthempact f heircritiquey etting e up as a symbolicargetora ritual layingfhegemonicuthorityherever


3/7

BookReview orum 349itexists. uchtemptingiversions aymake orentertainingeading,ut t s nformativeialogueratherhan he uthor hatmost ften ieswithsuch actics,speciallyhen hey ead to seriousmisrepresentationsf hebookbeing eviewed.Myfirst esponse o the reviews,o put itmildly, asdisappointment.ut rather hanre-sponding ith imilarlyffensivedjectival t-tacks n thepersonal irtues fthereviewers,have decided o search hroughhereviews orwhat considero be theirmost timulatingndconstructivenvitationso dialogue. willre-spond o thesenvitations,npart,oclarifyfewof theargumentsevelopedn Thirdspacehatappear ometo havebeenmisinterpretedy hereviewers. ymain bjective,owever,s nottodefendwhat havewrittenutto keepopendebate nddiscussion n several ey ssues ur-rently acing hediscipline fGeographyhatmight e obscuredf ithermy iews r those fthereviewersretaken oo iterally.I beginwithRobShields, or is elegant ittleessays themostnformativelyointednd eastselfishlyidetracked.hile thinketoonarrowlyconfineshirdspaceobeing text n Lefebvre,Shieldsnotesthe book'sshortcomings,entlyprovides n alternative iew, nd manages,nmostcases, to deflectmy mmediate eaction(that is lternativesreally hat wastryingosay)by pening p nterestingewpossibilitiesorreinterpretation.ake,for xample, isskepti-cism bout Thirdspace"eeming o be a reifiednoun ratherhanan actionword hatdenotesboth nachievedtate f ffairsnd anongoing,recombinativer "rolling"rocess f develop-ment ndperformativity.triedmybest o de-scribe he onceptndthe xpandedcope f hegeographicalmaginationhat oes longwith tin ust uch combined nddynamic ay, ut fthis s notwhat omes hroughothe nformedreader, henmypresentations significantlyflawed. erhaps shouldhave stayedwithLe-febvrend,morestraightforwardly,alled thebook ivedpace, voidingheuseof ny eifiableordinalumbersnd rinities.ut s Shieldsptlynotes, emainingxclusively ithLefebvre asserious rawbacks,specially ith egardo in-corporatinghevital onceptsf lteritynd dif-ferencento riticalpatial hinking. e can allagree hatLefebvre,hile ndlesslynspiring,snot nough.As I triedodo,Shields alls ornopeningpofLefebvre'srovocativeriad fperceived,on-ceived, nd ived pacesto a wider chorus" f

alternativeoicesthat an be used not usttoenhance urunderstandingfLefebvre,ut lsoto expand he nterpretivecope of the criticalgeographicalmaginationnd increase he rele-vanceof lived pace/Thirdspaceerspectiveoourunderstandingf importantontemporaryissues elatingo urbanism,ultural olitics,ndsocial ndspatial ustice.Althoughe takes hisopening p indirectionshat re nformativelydifferentrom ine, would ike othinkhat heoverall oneofShields's ssay ndits thematicplay on geographicalGreek choruses andchorographiess upportivef common ffortoexpand he nterpretiveower fcritical patialanalysiso the evels lreadychieved or riticalsocial ndhistoricalnquiry.hisefforto rebal-ance ourunderstandingsfspatiality,ociality,andhistoricalityas been t the ore fmyworkfor hepasttwodecades.Lefebvrerovides nextraordinarilyich oundationor hisproject,butwe mustmovebeyond isprovocativen-sights.nly nesmall omplaintere: heGreekroot orhoir ndchorusXopI; is not he ameastheroot or laceorterritoryXopoq], espitethe emptingimilaritynpronunciation.FollowingefebvrevenmorentimatelyhanIhave, hieldsnfuses is eview ith sensitivitytoLoveandStrugglereferencingisownforth-coming ook), alongwith touchof thepan-sexual roticseehiswryeferenceoDeleuze nthe mpregnatingonceptualuggerynherentnphilosophicalriting).efebvre,ven rperhapsespeciallynhisMarxism,lways eturnedo adiscussionf ove,poetry,ndthereign ftheSpiritnhis exts,ndShields orrectlyotes hatI addnothingounderstandinghy. ove andStruggleweep hereviewlong o ts piritual,fambivalent,onclusion, here hields aptureswhathe callsthe thirdlement"na transcen-dentmomentfescapefrom he"unmappable"and "dualistic" ialectic etween he materialandthemental,hereal and the magined,heperceived-commonsensicalnd the conceived-theoretical (p. 340). Here he defines ivedspaceirbirdspacendwhat describeds a criticalmethodf Thirding-as-Othering"n differentay,morepsychoanalyticallyrypticnd intractable,more ootednthemicrogeographiesf ntimacy,desire,exuality,hebody, heunconscious, etless accessible to conventional eographicalanalysis.Indoing o,Shields eatlyxposesmy ulner-abilitynThirdspaceo critiquehat havegiveninsufficientttention o thepsychoanalytical


4/7

350 BookReview orumliteraturend to those ntimate eographies,n-tegrally rapped nto livedspace/Thirdspace,that ccount ormuch f ts ltimatenknowabil-ity nd mystery.here s thusgood reason oelaborate pontheirntrinsicelevance o myarguments,specially ith espect o the llusivequalities f perceived-materialnd conceived-mental eographies.ut as Lefebvrergued,orall ts nterpretiveower,sychoanalysissbut neofmany ransdisciplinaryayso threadhroughthecomplexitiesf the modernworld."Whatmostdistinguishedefebvre's ork nd thatofvery ew therswas not his uncriticalommit-mentto such transdisciplinaryerspectivesspsychoanalysis,iteraryriticism,iscoursenaly-sis, tructuralism,xistentialism,inguistics,riti-cal historiography,ocial theory, arxism,ndcritical hilosophy, ut ratherhis committedchoice f pace s hisprimarynterpretivehread,usingtwith assionndpoliticalnsightoweavetogetherllof hese omprehensivend ntegra-tivemodes f nquiry.haveperhapsooambi-tiously ried ofollow similar ath nmy wnwritings,utting critical patialperspectiveahead f llothers. hat his hoice an too asilybe interpreteds an evangelicalpatialismhat,intentionallyrotherwise,gnoresther nd dif-ferentcholarly rojectsnd commitmentsillcontinue obe a validandvaluable riticismfmywork.My hope,however,s that hese on-structiveriticismsfwhat emains eaklyevel-oped in the critical oregroundingf a spatialperspectiveo notpreventthers romdoptinga similarroject.Shields eservesishighest raise ormy oot-notes am missingomethingere?),operhapsit sappropriateopickupandexpand n a sidecommentnhisreview. fter otinghatnearlyall myreferencesn marshaling p my post-Lefebvrehoir f patial hinkersome, otfromthediscipline fGeography,utfrom riticalculturaltudies nd related reas,he asks: Arethese uchdrought-timesor riticalulturale-ographers?"p. 340).Shouldnotgeographerse attheforefrontfwhatmany renowcalling hespatial urn,nunprecedentedontemporaryesurgencef thecriticalpatial magination? yanswer o boththese uestionss a qualified es. believe hatGeographys a disciplinehould e at thefore-frontf his patial urn, xpandinghe copeofcriticalhinkingbout pace, lace, ocation,it-ies, regions, nd the environmentnto areaswhere uchthinkingas heretoforeeenonly

weakly eveloped.Yet there till eemsto besomethinghats constraininghesewiderxcur-sions, llowingnly relativelymallnumber fself-identifiedeographerso be recognizedut-side thedisciplinaryold.Attemptingo explainthisperplexingmbalancend tofind waytochallenge eographerso engagemore ffectivelyin these argerebates n the patialityfhumanlifewas one of mykey bjectivesn Thirdspace,both n thetext nd in therunning ootnotes.This well-intentionedutprobably verstatedchallenge o Geographynd geographers ayhave a great eal to do with heundercurrentfangry eactionhat eems o nfusehe ther woreviews.Respondingoo ndirectlyothegenericoast-ing receivedrom eministeographersndoth-ers forPostmodemneographies1989), I spokewith wo acesnThirdspace.ookingne way,chose oprojectmy xplicitommitmentofemi-nist truggleshrough hat saw s a moreppro-priately alanced politicsof class, race, andgender xemplifiedest nthework f uch radi-cal women fcolor" s bellhooks,GloriaAn-zaldua, and Gayatri pivak,as well as otherfeministnd postcolonialcholars,male and fe-male,whodisplayednusuallyivid eographicalimaginationsntheir ritings.used his ommit-ment ottoturn heother heek o much s toturn round ndchallenge,omewould ayat-tack, eministeographyorwhats consideredobe its relativelyweak contributionso thetransdisciplinaryebateson space and spatialtheory. s I useda quotefrom atricia rice,writings Patricia rice-Chalita,o exemplifywhat thought asconstrainingeministeogra-phy rom ontributingore ffectivelyo thesedebates nd discussions,should othave beensurprisedofind hat heoldtactics f ymboli-cally slaying scholars ike Soja" (herwords,p. 342), setup as targeted hite traight alegeographersf substantial cademicprivilege,were tillnforce.MyfirsteactionoPrice's eview asto trikeback,playingnher ritiquefmy deadening"playfulnessnd"lighthearted"esolutionf thehardproblemsnvolved n incorporatingost-modernismnd poststructuralismnto criticalgeographicalnalysisp.342).Wasbeing femi-nistgeographerecessarilyo dour ndhumor-less? Must one worry so much aboutpostmodernismndpoststructuralisms to be-comefrozenndark espair,nable o use eitherone to advanceour understandingf human


5/7

BookReview orum 351spatiality?uchcleveromebacks,owever,on-tributeittleoour nderstandingf he halleng-ing ssuesPrice ffectivelyaises n herreview,issues hat recrucial o thefuture evelopmentofwhat emains masculinist,acist,nd elitistdisciplinefGeography.ritical ialogues toorare-inGeographyspecially-to ereduced omutual ame calling,o matterow ntertainingsuchbattles verMen versusWomenn Spacemay e to theaverage eader.t is time o worktogethero try odealwith urresolvable,atherthan unresolvable,ifferences,or here s toomuch t stake.Among hemost mportantssues acing riti-cal human eographyoday re those hat on-cern oice, lterity,ndwhat omenowcall thetyranniesf difference.he response o theseissuesmustbeginby nsistinghat thosemostsilenced e allowedo peak, obe istenedoandlearned rom. utat the sametime, oommustalsobemadefor hemany ther ifferentoicesthat hare n common commitmento prog-ressiventellectualndpoliticalrojectsnside swell s outside he disciplinefGeography.e-causeofherunusual ombinationf xperiencesas a radicalblackwoman n the U.S. andherparticularlycute ensitivityo the ultural oli-tics f pace, drew xtensivelypon andcon-tinueto look to) bell hooksas an especiallyinspiringnd stimulatingxplorerf hese oali-tionalcommunitiesf commitmentnd resis-tance to all formsof human oppression,domination,ndexploitation.hecondenses ercreativelypatial rgumentn a phrase hatuse-call it"appropriate"fyouwish-in an at-tempt o expandthe nterpretivecopeofthegeographicalmaginationeyondhe nnovativereframingsfLefebvrend Foucault. acedwithfrequentersonalttacks rom lacknationalists,whitefeminists,nd less financiallyrivilegedjunior cademics, ooksneverthelessnvites sall to participaten "choosinghemargins aspace f adical penness."his hoicefmargin-ality oesnot gnorehe mposed arginalityhatoppressesast umbersf eoplewhodonothavetheopportunityo choose. t works nstead oreconstitutenother ind fmarginhat anactas a strategicpaceofsolidaritynd resistanceratherhandivisionnd despair. o enter hisspace nvolves subversiverossingfborders,breakingownofallformsfexclusionaryndessentialistolitics,nd a decidedmovebeyondmanversuswoman,white ersus lack, apitalversusabor, apitalismersusocialism,ndthe

many ther ivisiveanddivisivelymposed) i-nary ppositionshathavefor oo ongfosteredthe tyranniesf difference.es,privilege akesthis hoicemuch asier, ut he amemay otbetrue or he ommitmentnd thepraxis.Price uestions y ommitmentoandunder-standingf his adicallypen patial onceptionofmarginality,ndshe deservesomedirect e-sponse.AmI, a whitemalegeographerf omesubstantialprofessional dvantage,able tochoosethemargins? certainlyope so, andinvite thers imilarlyositionedo oin n theproject fbreakingown hebarriersetup bynarrow-minded,f politically ell-intentioned,gatekeepers.oes thismean hat and "scholarslikeSoja" havesufficientlyealtwith hecom-mitmentsnvolvedn thischoiceand laboredhard nough o unlearnur rivileges ouross,"touseGayatripivak's emanding hrase? o,not yet, or implyhoosingmarginalitys notenough. hereremains-forll those rivilegedwith ccess othepages f heAnnals ndotherprofessionalournals-thehardtaskof settingaside our empoweringntitlements,r evenharder,ccepting ull esponsibilityor heop-pressionsssociated ith uchprivileges.Do I effectivelyollowhroughnThirdspaceoinfusemygeographicalritingsith success-fullyonstructiveommitmento a spatial oli-ticsofmarginalityhat connectsrather hanseparatesnd compartmentalizestrugglesverclass,race,andgender? ot enough, or gainandforll ofus, heres so muchmore hat eedsto be done in reshaping owwe write boutgeography.an itbe concludedhereforehathavewrittenbook hat,s Price laims,ustainsa canon basedon a systemfprivilege,ismay-inglyversimplifieshedebates vermodernndpostmoderneographies,ngagesn the worstpowerplays fboth modernismnd postmod-ernism, ails to graspthemessages f Othervoices, oo ightheartedlyismisseshe ontribu-tions ffeministeographers,nd ndulgesrro-gantlyn dialogue-deadeninglayfulness?herhetoricere stoothick orme torespond,oooverloadedwith the equivalent f askingmewhetherhave topped eing s evil s I wastenyearsgo.All cansay, sing rice's wnphrase,is that too ong oressof he ame.Shields ndPrice oot heir eviews,orwhat-ever aultsheymay ave,nthekeyssue fhowbetter o incorporateifference,lterity,nd acommitmento social and spatial ustice ntocontemporaryeographicalhinkingndwriting.


6/7

352 BookReview orumAndyMerrifield,owever,resentsittlemorethan displayf djectival libnessassingtselfoff sclever ritique.or ll tsfrantic it, his sa reviewo filled ith arelessmistakesnd falseaccusationshat t wipes ut thefew ignificantpointsthas tomake.Here are usta few f tsoffhandedisreadings.While ecturing eon hisversion fMarxism,dialectics,ndLefebvre, errifieldlaims hat"strategicallyverlook"ertaincrucial" assagesofLefebvre'survivalfCapitalismbout hedia-lectic o ongerlingingohistoricityp.344).Yetthequotedpassage,with oth precedingen-tenceon howthisdialectic iffersromhat fMarx and Hegel (a key pointthatMerrifieldomits)nd a fullerlaborationfLefebvre'slearattempto patializeialecticalhinkingperhapsthemost crucial" art fhis argument)ppearsonp. 44 of Thirdspace,longwith n extendeddiscussion hatclarifies hy herestofMerri-field'sectures, ousehis wn erm,ophomoric.Later nthereview, ampedanticallysked orememberolume ofCapital, hereMarx alksoftheHolyTrinityfLand,Labor, nd Capital,again lithelyverlookingy iscussionf hisnthetextMerrifields supposed o be reviewing.Movingn,he asksmewhere efebvre aswhenI looked tAmsterdam,naware,t eems, fmylengthylaborationfLefebvre'specificnflu-ence on thewriting fthischapter. fter issimple-mindedrashingfBaudrillard,e raisessomevery ertinentuestionsbout ontempo-rary oliticsn an agewhenthedifferencee-tween he real and the imagined as becomeincreasinglylurred,utby his ime ehasshothimselfnthe ooto often hat is rgumentsredecidedlyamed.The worst xample f such false ccusationmasqueradingscritiqueomeswhenMerrifieldponderouslyushesmeto rethink y ttemptocorrect hathasbecome neofthe most om-monmistakesnthe urrent ave fgeographicalwritingsnLefebvre,hematerialistrivilegingfwhat Lefebvre alled perceived pace/spatialpractices,rwhat termed Firstspaceerspec-tive.Many eographers,yselfncluded,ecameso attractedo thenotion f patial racticessthe"real"world fpoliticsnd socialrelations(spatial ractices-surelyhat's here he ctionis)that hey ailedo see Lefebvre'sncharacter-isticallylear tatementhat hepoliticsfdomi-nation ndresistancesplayed ut n ivedpace,notmerelyn the perceived nd materializedspace fpracticesnd secreted"elationsfpro-

duction,r n the onceivednd ymbolicpacesof representation, hich,Lefebvre rgued,tendto be the fundamental pace of domination.wrote two whole chapterstrying o clarify hispointand to focus ttention n the complex andoftenperplexing ualitiesof ived space,which,morethan anyother term, efineswhat I try oconvey in my compositenotion of thirdspace.Merrifieldnot only continues to misreadLe-febvre,he muddles the triadeven further. econfusesperceptionwith cognition, s no goodbehavioral geographerwould do, drops KevinLynch ntohis confusion, uixotically oncludesthat patialpractices re the "dialecticalpressurepoint" p. 345) thatkeepsthe conceivedand thelived together/apart,nd then claims that thisconfusedmesswould bestfitntomydefinitionfSecondspace. Such assertively uddledmaterial-ismwouldmake"poor oldHenri" turn ver nhisgrave at leastthree imes.Merrifield, owever,does indirectly aise animportantssuethat suspecthasalsocontributedto Price'sangerand Shields' puzzlement egard-ing the contemporaryiscipline f Geography.may ndeed have been too insistent ndunyield-ingin Thirdspacen arguing hatgeographers fall stripes will have more difficultythannongeographersnunderstandinghebook'sma-jortheoretical ritique, nd thereforen expand-ing the scope of theiralreadywell-establishedcriticalspatial imaginations. was temptedtorespond o the threereviews yusingtheir cca-sional errant sidetrackings nd misreadings oreinforcemy arguments.But this is much toofacilea response.There aremanymoregeogra-phers han chosetorecognizewho arepracticingprecisely hat preached nThirdspace,nddoingitmuchbetter han have done. To them offermy pologiesfor verstating y rgumentndnotappreciatingheir ignificantontributions.But do notwant to blunt hesechallenges oomuch,for think here tillremains privilegedcanon, deeply entrenched n Geography,thatcontinues to foster n excessivedisciplinaryn-troversion. implyput,too manyof the bestge-ographerscarry away much more from otherdisciplines han theygive n return, ushing ackintoGeography's mbracing oldwithnew ideasto reinforce stablishedways f"doinggeographyas usual,"whateverkindofgeographyne prac-tices.Mostgeographers, henthey ecognize heexciting nd creativespatialturnthathas beentakingplace in the 1990s,reactbyseeing t as apat on the back of the disciplinefora job well


7/7

BookReview orum 353done.Yet heres muchmore othis patial urn.A significantortion f hebestwork manatingfrom he resurgence f interestn space andspatialitys beingproduced utsideGeographyand with elativelyew,ittlemore hanpolite,referenceso thewritingsfgeographers.t thesame ime,hegeographicaliteraturesbecom-ing illed ith eferenceso these outsiders"hattoooftenmisreadndmisrepresenthemmerelyto legitimizeeographys usual, venwhen, swithLefebvre nd Foucault n particular,his

geographys usual be itfeminist, arxist,ul-tural, tc.) is what hey re critiquing.f Third-space serves in any way to open up newpossibilitiesor eographerso engagemore ro-ductivelyn the growingransdisciplinaryom-munityf cholars ho ee the patial imensionof ur ives s of qualcriticalmportanceo ife'sembracingistoricalityndsociality,hen twillhavebeenworth riting.fterll,geographyasbecome oo importanto be left xclusivelyogeographers.

Documents

E.W. Soja-Keeping Space Open