genealogy of the other and practices of spatialization

OriginalpaperUDC304(045) doi:10.21464/sp32211

Received:February27,2017

Dušan Marinković,1 Dušan Ristić,2 Žolt Lazar3

UniversityofNoviSad,FacultyofPhilosophy,DrZoranaĐinđića2,RS–[email protected],[email protected],[email protected]

Genealogy of the Other and Practices of Spatialization

AbstractThis paper is founded on the initial presupposition of the implicit presence of the static and non-dialectic space of physical geography in anthropology and sociology in the 19th century. Unlike anthropology which discovered the exotic Others as a dramaturgy in space lacking history the sociology of the Other and its social significance are revealed on the basis of a daily present closeness, ‘at home’. We claim that the discovered Others were first spatialized in an unhistorical and non-dialectical manner, like space itself. Тhe subsequent theoretical and epistemological spatial regionality led to the regionalization of Otherness. We conclude that discourses of many regionally constructed Othernesses appeared in an-thropology, sociology and social sciences only after the spatial turn and the understanding of the process of spatialization as social technology of power, i.e. production of space.

Keywordsgeo-epistemology,Other,power/space,regionalization,spatialization

Introduction: Implicit presence of space and the Other

Theestablishmentofsocialsciences in the19thcenturyasanautonomoussphereofknowledgeincomparisonwitholdmetaphysics,andthepreviousdominationoftheepistemologicalandmethodologicallegitimacyofnaturalsciencesdidnotleavemuchspaceforspace.Thepoliticsoftheformationofidentityofsocialscienceshappened,ontheonehand,underthedominationoftime–historicaltime,history–andontheother,underthedominationoftheCartesian-Kantbinarydivisionof space into its extendingmorphology(rex extensa)andintotranscendentalaestheticsofaprioricategoriesinwhichspaceappearsasanecessary(internal)conditionofthemanifestationof(ex-ternal)empiricalworldandexperience.However,eventhentheyoungsocialsciencedidnotfindhistorytobeadia-chronicnarration–a story.Itfounditreshapedinvariousformsofhistoricism– asanecessityofthehistoricalmovementtowardsfinalforms,astemporaldynamicsofmodernization.Itfoundmantobemoreaproductofhistoricaldeterminationsthanhistoryasahuman plan(Collingwood1994:65).While social science fought for the authenticity of its identity through the“politics”ofautonomy of the socialwhichhistoryprovidedwiththetemporaldimensionof thechangeabilityofforms,notmuchspaceremainedingeo-graphyfortheauthenticityofspace.Bycreatingnewboundariesandfieldsinthebattlefordisciplinaryidentities,geography,thescienceofboundariesandspaces,founditselfonthevergeofnewfieldsofknowledge:sociology,

https://doi.org/10.21464/sp32211

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA64(2/2017)pp.(433–447)

D.Marinković,D.Ristić,Ž.Lazar,Genea-logyofthe OtherandPracticesSpatialization434

anthropology, political economy, psychology and linguistics. Dialectics,changes,life,work,language–theseconjunctureswerepulledintothesenewfieldsofhistoricizedsocialsciencesleavingtogeographyspaceasanobjectofmeasurement,proportions,distanceofimmobilepoints.Itwas“squeezedoutofthecompetitivebattlegroundoftheoryconstruction”andits“analysisandexplanationwasreducedtolittlemorethandescribingthestage-settingwheretherealsocialactorsweredeeplyinvolvedinmakinghistory”(Soja1989:31).Itwasageographyofrigidcartographyandmorphologydefinedinadvance–theold,slow geography(Paasi2001:18).Bynotdealingwithspaceasitsimmediatesubjectbutinsteadby“borrow-ing”thissubjectfromgeography,socialsciencesactuallyborrowedaconceptofspacewhich,foralongtime,wasonlyanatural,geomorphological,cli-maticorecologicalscenography;abackgroundbeforewhichahistoricizeddramaturgyofsociety,manandculturetookplace.In this very space, borrowed from old geography, social sciences foundtheOthers.Anthropological,spatializedOther wasnottheonethatarrivedattheuniversalityofrationality,ofregularity,ofmodernityasahistoricalnecessityofmovingtowardsfreedom.ThisOther, thatwasdiscoveredinspacewithoutarichanddynamic,aliveanddialectichistory,wasjustlikeouroldrepresentationofspace:frozenandstatic.Ifwe“spatialize”Said’sviewoftheOther,then“orientalism”isamuchwiderconcept.Itispartofageo-epistemological apparatusofanalysis(MarinkovićandRistić2016)orFoucault’sdispositivewithwhichtheimplicitpresenceofthenon-dialecticspaceinanthropologyandsociologyofthe19thandbeginningofthe20thcenturyrevealstheexoticdistantOther[themostother(Hannerz1986:363;GuptaandFerguson1992:6)]asadramaturgyinspace;butwithalackofhistory.Actually, the European study of history was a study of itself.Tolook into space meant to admit to itself all its colonial pretensions – thecolonizationofspaceoftheexoticOtherwithEuropeanhistory;toadmitthatwecolonizedOthers,thatwesawtheminspace–butwithouthistoryorsociety,even“omitted”fromevolution(Lévi-Strauss2013:19).Itwasspaceunderstoodaslandscape (Cresswell2004:10),asapointofview,aviewoftheOther.Itwasspacedrenchedwithour,notwiththehistoryoftheOther.When,manydecadeslater,socialscientistsreturnedtospacesthroughhis-toricalreflection,theyfoundtheeffectsoftheperformanceofknowledge/power:spacesbecameinseparablefromtheconceptsofpower,domination,classification,distribution,strategy,exclusion(Sibley1998),deterritoriali-zation (Balibar 2009; Deleuze and Guattari 1987; Williams 2008), heter-otopy(Foucault1986),panopticon(Foucault1995;Elden2003;DobsonandFisher2007),simulacrum(Baudrillard1995),thevirtual(Shields2005),hy-perspace(Jameson1997:38),marginality(Hadziavdic2012), rootingout,displacements(Robertsonetal.1994),andfinally,human practices asakeywordinanthropology(Hannerz1986:364).ThatiswhatFoucaultdidinhishistoricalanalysesofnewspatializedpracticesofdiscipline, surveillance,punishment,sexualityandmadness.Foucaultunsettledtheoldsubjectmat-terofgeography(Foucault1980b:149)–spacethatis“staticandbound”,spacethat“freezestimeandremainsunshiftinganddull”(Cresswell1996:159).Socialscientistsascribedwesternerstothesocialformsofpower,thehistoryofdevelopment,totheformsofauthorityandlaw,whiletheyabandoned“un-



historicity”oftheeternalanduniversalprohibitionofincesttoanthropologi-calOthers:

“See,forexample,inethnologicalstudiesfromDurkheimtoLévi-Strauss,whatwastheprob-lemthatwouldalwaysreappear,perpetuallyre-worked:aproblemofprohibition,essentiallytheprohibitionofincest.”(Foucault2007:154)

PerhapsanthropologyandsociologycouldnotseetheseOthersforalongtimebecauseofthe‘borrowed’conceptofspace;instead,theyhadtode-velopdifferentconceptsofspace–adifferentspatializationoftheOther.Thefirstspatiallydirectedsocialresearchoccurredinthemid-19thcenturywiththeideaonthe“spatialreflection”ofsocialgroups.Spacesbegantobeunderstoodasareflectionofafunctionalorganizationofsociety(Maieretal.1977).ButonlywithDurkheimandMauss(1903)beganthefirstim-pulsestocrushtheCartesian-KantspaceinthoseplacesinTheElementary Forms of Religious Life (Durkheim1995:10),where spacewas returnedtohumanpractices.Durkheim’sbreakwiththeimplicitdominationoftheborrowedconceptofspacewasoneofthefirstindicationsoftheregionali-zationandheterogeneizationofspaceinsocialsciencesandofwhatwouldlaterberecognizedasthesocial construction of space(GuptaandFerguson1992:11).This surely does not mean that we should neglect geography or reject itasanoldparadigmofspatialization,becausegeographyitselftransformedinto understanding a new comprehension of space (Crang&Thrift 2003;Elden2001;GuptaandFerguson,1997;Harvey1992;2005;Lefebvre2007;Pickles2009;Soja1980;Soja1989).LikeMichelFoucault(1986)demon-strated,withoutanypretensionofsystematizationinthestudyofgeography,in this fieldofgeo-epistemologywe recognizeknowledge, power (power/knowledge), discursive creation, view, episteme… a system of an organized scatteredness(Foucault1980a;Gür2002).Althoughthegeographyofscat-terednessisaconceptfromphysicalgeography,whereitsignifiesthelackof connection between spatial entities, we use it in a metaphorical senseasaconceptof“politicalgeography”,thatis,as“aspaceofscatteredness;anopenfieldofrelationswhich,undoubtedly,canbedescribedinfinitely”(Foucault1994a:676).Asopposedto the“oldgeography”ofoncefirmlydefined political constructs (territories, borders, states), scatteredness is ahintof “irreversibledisorder” (Foucault 1994b:450),which refers simul-taneously to old political relations as well as to identities and traditionalsubjectivities(MarinkovićandRistić2015a).Thisisgeo-epistemologywhichwantstounderstand“its”constitutivecon-ceptsinadifferentway–theconceptswherehistory,anthropology,sociolo-gy,economy,geopoliticsandarchaeologyencountereachother.IfweaddtheconceptsoftheOtherandOtherness totheproblemofspace,thegeographyoflargeandclearareasturnsintoamicro-geographyofsmalldifferencesandsmall“regions”withunclearboundaries,ingeo-epistemology.AsNeumannsays,“inthecaseofregions,itisactuallypossibletosupportthisinsistenceontheexistenceofthenexusknowledge-power”(Neumann1999:115),whichmeansthatinthecaseofregions,itisnotonlyaboutgeopoliticaldimensionsincluded in thepoliticsof identity,but alsoaboutgeo-epistemological andgeo-axiological knowledge, values and power. Geo-epistemological analy-sis is the analysis of knowledge anddiscourseswhich are formed throughspacesandtheanalysisofspaceformedthroughknowledge/power/discourses(Marinković,ŠljukićandRistić2015).Inotherwords,thesearethespaceswherespeech,technologiesandpower/knowledgeareplaced.



Multiple sources of the renewal of the spatialization of the Other: From Vico to Foucault

The first founders of humanity applied themselves to sensory topics…And first it began to hew out topics…

(Vico1948:149)

SpatializationoftheOtheroccurredsporadicallyinvariousperiodsofthedevelopment of sociology and anthropology, as well as in different theo-retical traditions in Europe1 and the United States ofAmerica. This wasespeciallyvalidfor19thcenturyanthropology,whosedevelopmentwassig-nificantly spatialized (Marcus and Fischer 1986: 97). It seems, however,thattherewasacertainearlyparallelismbetweenanthropologyandsocio-logyinthediscoveryofthedistantandclose Other.Anthropologyasapar excellence discipline of differences and of the Other was faced with thisproblem“since longbefore thatwordwasspelledwithacapitalO” (Sax1998: 292). But almost at the same time sociology discovered the Otheranditssocialsignificance,butonthelevelofthedailypresentlooseness2–at home,asMarcusandFischer(1986)indicated.InthecasesofboththedistantandcloseOther,spacewasmoreorlessimplicitlypresent.InbothcasesthesespatiallycloseandspatiallydistantOtherswereinheritedtopics(Augé1989).AsearlyaswithGiambattistaVico,inhisScienza Nuova–abookthatwasdiscoveredquitelate–weencounterquestionsofthespatializedOtheraswellastheproblemoftheborders of the Other.Byascribingtoaristocraticsoci-eties theestablishmentandmaintenanceof theborders/boundaries towardstheOthersasoneoftheirmostsublimequalities,Viconoticedthat“ontheseboundarieswere tobe fixed the frontiers firstof families, thenofclansorhouses,laterofpeoples,andfinallyofnations”(Vico1948:327).What is even more significant is Vico’s realization that the new scienceneeded“tocleansetheothereyeofpoetichistory,namelypoeticgeography”(Vico1948:254).Weshouldadd to this thatVico’s spatialization throughbordersisnotanauthenticdiscovery,itcanbefoundasearlyasinPlato’sLaws,inthatplacewhereaneighbor, a townsman and a stranger encountereachother in the regionofborders.This idea issurelyolder thanPlatoaswell.ItisaheritageofancientGreekmythologicalgeography(ofborders)whichneededZeusHerkeious–“theprotectorofborderlines”(Arendt1998:30).Anevenmoresignificantthingwasthathisnewperformativeepistemol-ogyverum ipsum factum didnotreferonlytohistory,butalsotogeography,becausethepresence of man isanideaon“thegeographicalagent”(Mills1982:8).Inthatsense,Vico’sgeographywaseventhenabreakfromtheCar-tesianspace–anti-cartesianism(Collingwood1994).Itwasageographyofknowledge,anepistemologicalgeography,aphilosophyofspaceandplace(Kunze1983).FouryearsbeforeVico’sScienza Nuovawaspublished,Montesquieu’sPer-sian LetterswereadiscoveryofeasternersasancientEuropeanOthersviathequestionifitwasevenpossiblenottobeaEuropeanandwhatitwasliketobetheOther–differentfromwhatisacceptableascivilized.Growingdistantfroma familiar andclosegeography,crossing the borders of an advanced kingdom, Montesquieu says in Usbek, simultaneously means crossing theborders of our knowledge:



“Wewereborninaprosperousrealm,butdidnotbelieveitsboundariesshouldbethebounda-riesofourknowledge,andthatthelightoftheOrientneedbetheonlylighttoilluminateourpath.”(Montesquieu2008:4)

LikewithVico,thisismoreageo-epistemologicalthanaphysical-geographi-cal insight. Through these early, imaginary anthropological travels Mon-tesquieuofferedtofutureanthropologyandsociologyamodelofacompara-tive approach to the Other with a warning that the Other is no substantialcategory,but amatterofborders that aredrawn, establishedanddefendedbetweenusandtheothers.BesidestheOther,Montesquieualsorevealedtofutureanthropologyandsociologynewmeaningsofborders,i.e.anaspira-tiontoleaveourpresentboundariesandtouseborderstoavoidoneanother(Montesquieu2008:156).MontesquieuactuallydidnotmanagetoescapehisownEuropean view(Lorenso2011:45).WecannotomitherethehiddengeographyoftheOtherinMicheldeMon-taigne’swork,inwhichwecanrecognizetheanticipationofVico’sideaonthe epistemology of space and elements of a geo-epistemology. His mostsignificantcontemplationsontheconnectionofgeographyandthoughtarefoundpreciselyinthatpartwhereEuropemeetsanexotic,butwild,Other;On Cannibals.ItispreciselyherethatMontaignefacesuswiththeepistemology of the local;aregionalwhichhasaproblemthemomentitstepsoutintoadifferent,distantgeographyofthespacesofOthers:

“Indeedweseemtohavenoothercriterionoftruthandreasonthanthetypeandkindofopin-ionsandcustomscurrentinthelandwherewelive.”(Montaigne1993:108–109)

Besides this, in what is probably his most significant geo-epistemologicalinsight,Montaignecriticizesevenwhatwecouldcallanepistemologicalto-pography,ananthropo-epistemologicalcartography(Montaigne1993:108).JustlikewithVico,herealsoexistsananticipationofadeviationfromCarte-siangeography(surely,severaldecadesbeforeDescarteshimself):

“Idonotbelieve,fromwhatIhavebeentoldaboutthispeople,thatthereisanythingbarbarousorsavageabout them,except thatweallcallbarbarousanythingthat iscontrary toourownhabits.”(Montaigne1993:108)

Inacertainsense,thisanthropo-epistemologicalcartographyofMontaigne’santicipatedwhatwouldbearticulatedonlyinSaid’simaginativegeographyofOrientalism(1979)asadualisticepistemologyoftheoccidentalandori-ental (Sax 1998: 292). However, Montaigne’s anthropological cartographyandtopographyreachrighttothepreviouslymentionedideaofFoucault’s;that thereisalsoonemuchdeeperdualismbetweenusandthem.Thisisadualismthatproducesanewmap–topologyandcartographyofpower(andauthority)whichhidesadesiretosociallylocalizeandregionalizetheWest.Ontheotherhand,cultureasahidden termhasalwaysbeen“theessential

1

“The theme of ‘the Other’ – and speciallywhatconstitutestheOthernessof‘theOther’– has been at the very heart of the work ofevery major twentieth-century Continentalphilosopher.” (Bernstein, 1991: 68) Accor-ding to Iver Neumann (1999), the theme of“the Other” has been central to at least onesocialdiscipline–socialanthropology,butithasalsobeenofinterestinfieldssuchasphi-losophy, psychology, sociology and literarytheory.

2

Contemporary research on the Other andOtherness “at home” or at the level of dai-lypresent closeness is still not anexclusivefield of research of sociology. For instance,anthropologistJonathanFriedmanwritesthatOtherness“beginsathome,withourprimaryOthers”(1991:99).



toolformakingOther”(Abu-Lughod1991:143)–asthem.IfwerememberFoucault’s (2007:154)quotation thatethnologysinceDurkheimandLevi-Strausslimitedthepowerofprohibitionofincest,i.e.thatitwasessentiallyanethnologyofrules,anethnologyofprohibition,thenthisisthehiddenyetalwayspresentdeepdichotomyofsociety(us)andculture(them).AlthoughFoucault’sintentionwasofadifferentnature,toshow“howisitthatoursociety,Westernsocietyingeneral,hasconceivedpowerinsucharestricted,suchapoorandsuchanegativeway?”(2007:154).InitwecanrecognizeMontaigne’sannouncementofthegeo-epistemologyofthespatial-izedOther.

Presence of the stranger – approximation of the Other

Your Christ is a Jew. Your car is Japanese. Your pizza is Italian. Yourdemocracy – Greek. Your coffee – Brazilian. Your holiday – Turkish.

Your numbers – Arabic. Your letters – Latin. Only your neighbor is a foreigner.(Bauman2004:27)

Withouttheseearlypre-sociologicaltheoreticalexperiencesintheanalysisoftheOtheritwouldbedifficulttoimaginethe“originality”ofSimmel’s(1950)andlaterSchütz’s(1944)Stranger,aswellastherecurringsociologicaldis-coveriesoftheOther,viaEuropeaninfluences,inthetraditionofAmericansociology,primarilyviaThomas’The Unadjusted Girl(1967),thePolish (im-migrant) OtherbyFlorianZnaniecki(ThomasandZnaniecki1984),Wirth’sghettoized Other (1958)andPark’smarginalized Other, expressed invari-ousdegreesofdistance(Park1928).Surely,thereisalsoMead’sgeneralized other (2003) as our social, socialized alter-ego.There is nodoubt that themostsignificant frameofdiscovering theOther insociology in theUnitedStateswastheChicago Schoolintheperiodbetweentheworldwars,butthereisalsonodoubtthatEuropeaninfluences,firstbyGeorgSimmelandthenbyAlfredSchütz,providedthemostdirectstimulationforthedevelopmentofthisunderstandingoftheOther.Afterthisperiod,Otherwasdiscoveredinsociologyseveralmoretimes,eachtimeinadifferentway.Certainlythemostfruitfulmannerofthisre-discoveryin sociology, which synthesized previous viewpoints, was Goffman’s stig-matized Other (1963) aswell ascaptured Other, divided from the rest byimpenetrablebordersoftotal institutions(Goffman1961).Thisverycaptured spatialized otherbyGoffmanisoneofraresociologicalreferenceswhichoc-curintheconstructionofFoucault’sOthersasthosewhoaretheproductsofnewkindsofknowledgeanddiscursivepractices:psychiatry,law,medicine,pedagogy,psychology(Foucault2003;2006).WhenthediscoveriesoftheseGoffmanianandFoucauldianOthersstartedtoemerge,almostsimultaneous-ly,inthe1960s,theyfoundthemselvesinthemiddleofagreatrulingpara-digmofstructural functionalismwhichstillhadnosensitivityorspace forsmallintensities(Weber1978)forthedifferencesbetween“regional”typesaswellasthosewhowere‘small’eitherinastaticand/orempiricalsenseand,therefore,had‘small’ theoreticalsignificance.Tobestatistically irrelevant,sociallyabsent,culturallymarginalizedandpoliticallyexcludedstilldoesnotmeantobeinsignificantforresearch.Onthecontrary,asCresswellwrites,“…marginal,grotesque,extraordinaryelementsandeventsinsocietyareinterestinginthem-selves,buttheyaremoreinterestingwhenweexaminetheroletheyplayindefiningthe‘nor-mal’, theclassical, thedominant.Thecentercouldnotexistwithoutthemargin.”(Cresswell1996:149)



PeterStallybrass andAllonWhite (1986) also argue that “what is sociallyperipheralisoftensymbolicallycentral”.Simmel’s sociological andSchütz’s social psychological stranger (Simmel1950;Schütz1944)arethemostimmediateandmostoriginalframeworksforanalysingtheregional Otherastheonethatispresentandclose,yetsimul-taneouslyrecognizedasdifferent. In thatsense thestranger is theregionalOtherproducedinthedrawingofporousandfluidbordersthatcutthroughthesametimeandspace.Atthesametime,spaceisnotaminorinevitabilityinwhichsocialrelationstakeplace,i.e.aninevitablebackgroundtoeventful-ness:

“Spatialrelationsareonlythecondition,ontheonehand,andthesymbol,ontheother,ofhu-manrelations.”(Simmel1950:402)

Everystranger,liketheOther,isthus“fixedwithinaparticularspatialgroup,orwithinagroupwhoseboundariesaresimilartospatialboundaries”(Sim-mel1950:402).Theregionalproductionofnewspacesoccursastheproduc-tionofnewborders(orborders analogue to spatial ones)inwhichtheOtherappearsnot“asthewandererwhocomestodayandgoestomorrow,butratherasthepersonwhocomestodayandstaystomorrow”(Simmel1950:402)–astheonewhostaysinthenewlyproduced(orratherdefined)spaces.Andhis“positioninthisgroupisdetermined,essentially,bythefactthathehasnotbelongedtoitfromthebeginning,thatheimportsqualitiesintoit,whichdonotandcannotstemfromthegroupitself”(Simmel1950:402).ThisSimmelianinterpretationoftheOtherasastrangersolvesone,atfirstglance,paradoxicalsituation.Namely,easilyseengreatdifferences(social,cultural,political)donotnecessarilyproduceconflictsofgreatintensity.Rad-icallydifferentOthersmostoftenremaindistantOthers,beyondthespaceandbordersdefinedasoursandtheirs.Ontheotherhand,theveryclosenessofthestrangerandclosenessofthedefinedotherisasourceofconstantpoten-tialtension.Thiscanreferpreciselytotheregionalother,whoisnotjustastrangerwho“came”andstayed,butalsotheonewhoisproducedinourim-mediatevicinity,withintheoncecommonlydefinedspaceanditsboundaries(Simmel1950:406).Therearesurelythosewhodo not stay,whocannotbeheldbyanyborders,asylums,statesornations.TodaythereareprobablymanymoreofthemthaninthetimewhenSimmeldefinedthemastheoneswhocomeandstay.3Thesearestrangersinconstantpassing,wandering,whowillnotbestoppedbytheidentityofanylocalityorregionalityofspace–theoneswhoseidentitiesarefloating,wandering,fluid,liquid(Bauman2000;2004)–unanchored.Thesearenewnomads,(we)refugees(Arendt1994),migrantworkers,“thosewhocrossbordersmoreorlesspermanently–immigrants,refugees,exiles,andexpatriates. In their case, thedisjunctureofplace andculture is especiallyclear”(GuptaandFerguson1992:7).Itisdifficultinfluidmodernitytore-drawthecartographyofoldborders–betweenusandthem;foritisnowuswho“seekandconstructandkeeptogetherthecommunalreferencesofouridentitieswhileon the move”(Bauman2004:26).Simmel’sdiscoveryofthesociologicalsignificanceofthestrangerhaslongbeenextendedtoothersociologicalfieldsandhasthusacquiredthestatusofa generally known fact.Therefore, these general sociological findings can

3

OntheproblemsofidentificationofOthersinanthropologyseeCohen(1989).



beappliedwithoutmethodologicalandtheoreticalfeartotheregionalOther.Thisapplicabilitycanprimarilyfinditsplaceinthoseseeminglyconfusingsocialsituationsinwhichone“doesnotexpect”theclose,regionalOthertobecomeastranger.Furthermore,whatislittleexpectedisfortherelationtothecloseOther,asarelationofdifferencesofsmall intensities, toproduceconflictsgreaterthantheoneswithdistantOthers.Thisnecessityforaperi-odicalproductionofsignificant,greatOthers(inEurope)andnewrelationswithregionalOtherswillbediscussedinthenextsection.

Regionalization of the Other

Itcanbepresumedthatoneoftheimportantreasonsformultiplemeaningsofspaceswereturnedto,i.e.forthetheoreticalandepistemologicalspatialregionality,isthefactthattherewerequitedifferentsourcesoftherenewalofinterestinspacesandspatialization:fromtherediscoveryofspacebyVicoandMontesquieu,toLefebvre’s,andlater,DavidHarvey’sspecificneomarx-ismaswellasFoucault’sview(whichmustbeunderstoodasauthenticde-spitevariousinfluencesthatshapedit).Themultiplicityandheterogeneityofspacesignifiedthefactthatitbecameavariableofsocialinteraction.Inthesamemanner,thespatialturn(WarfandArias2009)impliedthatthefrequent-lyusedspatial metaphors (KeithandPile1993:1,35)–useful metaphors(SmithandKatz1993:68)–insocialsciencestransformedintoanalyticalandepistemologicalinstruments.Regionalizedandheterogeneizedspacesno longerhave thefeaturesofolddescriptiveregional geography(Cresswell2004:16).Theycanalsoexistasdeterritoralizing entities4 or as Straussian floating signifiers (Lévi-Strauss1963)withshapesthatareneverclear,butwithvisibleeffectsoftheiraction.Wecansaythatdespitegreatrulingpatternsinwhichthedistant,“themostOtherofOthers”(Hannerz1986:363)appear,therearelessdistant,regionalOthers–multitudes of regionally constructed Othernesses,notonlyincom-parisonwiththosegreatrulingpatterns(accordingtowhichtheOtherappearsasanopposite,asastranger),butpreciselybecause ofthegreatpatternsthatproducethem;andyetdonothavetonecessarilydeterminetheirspacesandplace–“theOther”neednotbeexotic:“The anthropologist reports not on the remote exotic but on the nearly familiar.” (Kuklick1997:64)5

Discoursesonregional Other and Otherness couldoccuronlywhenspatialrelationsinresearchinsocialsciencesbegantobeunderstoodnotonlyasfor-malgeometries,butassubstantivegeographies(Philo2003:228);andonlywhenknowledgeitselfbecameregionalized(Foucault1980a:69).Onlywhenthecontrolanddivisionofspaceandtimebecame“afundamentalmeans by which knowledge and power came to be exercised increasinglyoverallspheresofsociety”(Zieleniec2007:130).Andfinally,whenitwasdiscoveredthatnothingisexternaltopower,becauseitisimplicatedinallthatweareandallthatweinhabit(Allen2003:65–66).ThiswasmadepossibleprimarilybecauseoftheLefebvre-Foucault-Harveytrihedral,whounderstoodspaceasaproductofhumanpractices,practicesandtechnologiesofpower:“Ifwehavelearnedanything,itisthatspacesandplacesessentiallyarecon-flicted:theyaresitesofstruggle”(GabbertandJordan-Smith2007:217.PaulVeyne(1997)verysimplydeterminedtheconceptofpracticeinthecontextofattemptstoexplainFoucault’srevolutionizing of history:



“Practiceisnotsomemysteriousagency,somesubstratumofhistory,somehiddenengine;itiswhatpeopledo(thewordsaysjustwhatitmeans).”(Veyne1997:153)

AlthoughLefebvre,FoucaultandHarveybelongtodifferenttheoreticaltradi-tions,theirinterestinspaceconnectsthecrucialconceptofhuman practice–apolyvalentconceptwhich,inanycase,connectsthetheoreticalheteroge-neityofneomarxismwithverydifferenttheoriesanddiscourses.Ontheotherhand,wecanconnectthesethreeimportantauthorswithanideathatpracticesofspatialproductioncanbeunderstoodassocialpracticeswhichimplicitlycontaintechnologiesofpower(MarinkovićandRistić2015b).Michel Foucault used special metaphors to indicate that ‘the picturesquespeechof liberatedspace’representsan importantanalyticalmeansforex-ploringpower.AccordingtoFoucault,spacehasbecomeagreatobsessionofourtime(Foucault1980b).Weareintheepochofthesimultaneous,parallel,closeanddistanttotheepoch,neighbouringandscattered(Foucault1986).However,whatisakeyconnectionthatFoucaultmanagedtoestablishisaconnectionofdiscursivepractices,spacesandpower(Foucault1980b:149).Inotherwords,“thespatialisingdescriptionofdiscursiverealities”forFoucault“givesontotheanalysisofrelatedeffectsofpower”(Foucault1980a:70–71).Thecontrolanddivisionofspacethusbecameafundamentalmeansbywhichknowledgeandpowercametobeexercisedoverallspheresofsociety.Thedi-agramofpowerwhosepointsofintersectionandeffectscanberesearchedinregionalizedspacesoftheOthers–intheirsocialpractices–(Deleuze2006:34).Thatdiagramofspace/powerofregionalized Otherness(MarinkovićandRistić2015a)canbeunderstoodascoextensive withthefieldsofregionalsites–adiffusenetwork of practices of spatialization.Acrucial element in thisviewofspace/poweristhattheinterleavingofrelationshipsdoesnothappeninamatrix“fromabove”or“frombehind”,butsimultaneously –throughtherelationshipsproducedwithin thevarioussocialpractices.Weare,therefore,nolongertalkingonlyaboutspatialimageryofOthernessamongsocialactors,norofspatialmetaphorsinanalysis,butofelementsofageo-epistemological analysisofspace/power,whichrecognizetheimportanceofmappingtheflatten fieldofobjectiverelationsamongvariabilities:amongcentreandperiphery,amongforcesthatconstitutespace/powerrelations,im-manentinsocialpractices.Inthissense,differentregionalarrangementsofspace/powercanbeunderstoodas“integraltothewaysinwhichparticularforms of conduct are secured” or seen “as having much to do with fixingpeopledownaswithfacilitatingtheirdistributionandcirculationthroughanintricatewebofrelationships”(Allen2003:70).Regionsofsocial Otherness (nowitisirrelevantiftheyarecloseordistant,here,atourbordersorfarfromus)associalarrangementsofpracticesofspace/powercannolongerbeun-derstoodincategoriesofstaticformsofspatialization.Asdistant,separated,unknown,“frozen”inspaceasres extensa,regionalOtherscanbeheretodayandtomorrowinacompletelydifferent place.Inthatsense,theregional Otherisamatterofsettingnewkindsofborderswhichproducesocial Otherness.Socialpracticesofproducingspacebyes-tablishingbordersisprecededbyaclassification.Actually,therearenoclassi-ficationswithoutborders(aclassificationissettingtheborders),norarethere

4

In avague,metaphoricalway,de-territoria-lization refers to the dissolution of borders,boundaries and the anthropological “field”(Kokot2006).

5

According toGuptaandFerguson (1997:4)cultures“arenolongerfixedinplaces”.



borders without a classification (borders are the product of classification).TheregionalOtheralsoappearsasanotherimportantdimensionofourrep-resentationsofclassifiedentitiesthatareexpressedinahierarchicalprincipleofsociality.

Conclusion

WecanquiterightlyaskifthespatializationoftheregionalOtherbelongstothedomainofthesignificant Othersandifwehavemethodologicalinstru-mentsdevelopedenoughtorecognizethosefloating, fluiddifferencesasim-portant.Thisquestionshouldbeprimarilyunderstoodas“aresearchquestion,andnotaquestionofconjecture”;aquestion“todecidewhichdiacriticamarkaparticularself/othernexus,betweennationsaswellasbetweenotherhumancollectives”(Neumann1999:5).Weshouldsaythat,atleastintheEuropeancontextofintensiveregionaliza-tion,theproductionoftheOtherisnotanewtopic.Ithasalonghistory.ThisisthehistoryofEuropeitself,itsdurationanditsidentity–thehistoryofitsself-recognizability:

“AvarietyofOthershavebeenandareinstrumentalintheprocessofforgingEuropeaniden-tity.”(Neumann1999:39)

AtthesametimethismatrixofEuropeanlongproductionoftheOtherisare-alitywhichwecanseewitheyeswideopen.Itshapesuslikeitalwayshas.ItisthepartofEuropean“identity”,althoughEuropeans“nolongerknowthem-selves;theyignoretheirmixedancestriesandseekaproperrole”(Foucault1984: 92). Its currentness, just like its history, is invitation enough for re-searchingtheregionalOtherorregionalOthersbecausewithoutthatinsightitwouldnotbepossibletounderstandandexplaintheEuropeanmultifacet-edness;itsethnical,cultural,linguistic,social,political,economic,religiousheterogeneity; and, certainly, its ancient and never fully completed searchfor its own borders – geographical as well as cultural, political and social–whichitwilldetermineincomparisonwithitselfandthroughitsgreatandsignificantOtherswithwhomithasundertakenanuninterruptedmillennialdialogue(MarinkovićandRistić,2015a).Thescopeoftheproblematizationofthesetopicshasnotomittedthenecessityofgeographyandnewformsofspatialization,redefinitionofformerfirmborders,aswellastheconsiderationofnewmeaningsoftheveryconceptsofpractice, space andborder.Inasimilarmanner,thecurrentnessofthegeopoliticaldiscourseonregionsandregionalizationnecessarilyimposesnewformsofdistributionandredis-tributionofpower,newformsofpoliticalparticipation,newformsofpoliticaldivisionsandinfluenceswhichhavetheirspatialforms,zones,classifications,areas,territories,places–andmaybeevenanewformofanalysis:ageo-epis-temologyofspace/power.

References

Abu-Lughod,L.(1991):“WritingAgainstCulture”,in:Fox,R.G.(ed.):Recapturing An-thropology: Working in the Present.SantaFe,NewMexico:SchoolofAmericanResearchPress,pp.137–162.

Allen,J.(2003):Lost Geographies of Power.Oxford:BlackwellPublishing.

Arendt,H.(1994):“WeRefugees”,in:Robinson,M.(ed.):Altogether Elsewhere: Writers on Exile.BostonandLondon:FaberandFaber,pp.110–119.



Arendt,H.(1998):The Human Condition.ChicagoandLondon:TheUniversityofChi-cagoPress.

Augé,M.(1989):“L’autreproche”,in:Segalen,M.(ed.):L’autre et le semblable.Paris:PressesduCNRS,pp.19–33.

Balibar, E. (2009): “Europe as Borderland”, Environment and Planing D: Society and Space27(2/2009),pp.190–215.doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/d13008.

Baudrillard,J.(1995):Simulacra and Simulation. TranslatedbySheilaFariaGlaser.Michi-gan:UniversityofMichiganPress.

Bauman,Z.(2000):Liquid Modernity.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Bauman,Z.(2004):Identity: Conversations with Benedetto Vecchi.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Bernstein,R.J.(1991):The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Moder-nity/Postmodernity. Cambridge:Polity.

Collingwood,R.G.(1994):The idea of history. Revised edition with Lectures 1926/1928.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Cohen,A.P.(1989):“Latraditionbritanniqueetlaquestiondel’autre”,in:Segalen,M.(ed.):L’autre et le semblable.Paris:PressesduCNRS,pp.35–51.

Crang,M.;Thrift,N.(eds.2003):Thinking Space. London–NewYork:Routledge.

Cresswell,T. (1996): In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, and Transgression.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Cresswell,T.(2004):Place – A Short Introduction.Malden,Oxford:Blackwell.

Deleuze,G.;Guattari,F. (1987): A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.TranslatedbyBrianMassumi.MinneapolisandLondon:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Deleuze,G.(2006):Foucault. TranslatedbySeánHand.Minneapolis:UniversityofMin-nesotaPress.

Dobson,J.E.;Fisher,P.F.(2007):“ThePanopticon’sChangingGeography”,Geographi-cal Review 97 (3/2007), pp. 307–323. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2007.tb00508.x.

Durkheim,É.;Mauss,M.(1903):“Dequelquesformesprimitivesdeclassification”,An-née sociologique 6 (1903), pp. 1–72.Available at: http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/mauss_marcel/essais_de_socio/T7_formes_classification/formes_classification.pdf (ac-cessedonFebruary27,2017).

Durkheim,É.(1995):The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.NewYork:TheFreePress.

Elden,S.(2001):Mapping the Present: Heidegger, Foucault and the Project of a Spatial History.London–NewYork:Continuum.

Elden,S. (2003): “Plague,Panopticon,Police”,Surveillance & Society 1 (3/2003), pp.240–253.

Foucault,M.(1980a):“QuestionsonGeography”,in:Power/Knowledge Selected Inter-views and Other Writings 1972-1977 Michel Foucault.NewYork:PantheonBooks,pp.63–77.

Foucault,M.(1980b):“TheEyeofPower”,in:Power/Knowledge Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977 Michel Foucault.NewYork:PantheonBooks,pp.146–166.

Foucault,M.(1984):“Nietzsche,Genealogy,History”,in:Rabinow,P.(ed.):The Foucault Reader.NewYork:PantheonBooks,pp.76–100.

Foucault, M. (1986): “Of Other Spaces”, translated by Jay Miskowiec,Diacritics 16(1/1896),pp.22–27.doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/464648.

Foucault,M.(1994a):“Réponseàunequestion”,in:Dits et écrits2, 1954–1969.Paris:Gallimard,pp.673–695.

https://doi.org/10.1068/d13008

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2007.tb00508.x

https://doi.org/10.2307/464648



Foucault,M.(1994b):“Structuralismeetpoststructuralisme”,in:Dits et écrits4,1980–1988.Paris:Gallimard,pp.431–453.

Foucault,M.(1995):Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.TranslatedbyAlanSheridan.NewYork:VintageBooks.

Foucault,M.(2003):Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France, 1974-1975.TranslatedbyGrahamBurchell.London–NewYork:Verso.

Foucault,M. (2006):Psychiatric Power: Lectures at the College De France, 1973-74.TranslatedbyGrahamBurchell.NewYork:Palgrave,Macmillan.

Foucault,M.(2007):“TheMashesofPower”,in:Crampton,J.W.;Elden,S.(eds.):Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and Geography.TranslatedbyGeraldMoore.Burling-ton:Ashgate.

Friedman,J.(1991):“FurtherNotesontheAdventsofPhallusinBlunderland”,in:Nencel,L.;Pels,P. (eds.):Constructing Knowledge: Authority and Critique in Social Sciences.Inquiries in Social Construction.London:Sage,pp.95–113.

Gabbert,L.;Jordan-Smith,P.(2007):“Introduction:Space,Place,Emergence”,Western Folklore66(3–4/2007),pp.217–232.doi:

Goffman,E.(1961):Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. NewYork:AnchorBooks.

Goffman, E. (1963): Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. London:Penguin.

Gupta,A.;Ferguson,J.(eds.1997):Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Gupta,A.; Ferguson, J. (1992): “Beyond ‘Culture’. Space, Identity and the Politics ofDifference”, Cultural Anthropology 7 (1/1992), pp. 6–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1992.7.1.02a00020.

Gür,B.F.(2002):“SpatialisationofPower/Knowledge/Discourse:TransformationofUr-banSpaceThroughDiscursiveRepresentationsinSultanahmet,Istanbul”,Space and Cul-ture 5(3/2002),pp.237–252.doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331202005003004.

Hadziavdic,H.(2012):“Gypsiesas‘MarginalMan’inWorksbyGeorgSimmelandRob-ertPark”,Rocky Mountain Review66(1/2012),pp.32–44.doi:https://doi.org/10.1353/rmr.2012.0007.

Hannerz,U.(1986):“TheoryinAnthropology:SmallisBeautiful?TheProblemofCom-plexCultures,”Comparative Studies in Society and History28(2/1986),pp.362–367.

Harvey,D.(1992):The Condition of Postmodernity.Cambridge,MA:Blackwell.

Harvey,D.(2005):“SpaceasaKeyWord”, in:Spaces of Neoliberalization: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development,Hettner-Lecture 2004. Heidelberg:FranzSteinerVerlag,pp.93–115.

Jameson,F.(1997):Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Keith,M.;Pile,S.(eds.1993).Place and the Politics of Identity.London–NewYork:Routledge.

Kokot,W.(2006):“CultureandSpace–anthropologicalapproaches”,Etnoscripts.Avail-ableathttps://www.ethnologie.uni-hamburg.de/pdfs-de/ethnoscripts-pdf/es_9_1_artikel1.pdf(accessedonFebruary20,2017).

Kuklick,H.(1997):“AfterIshmael:TheFieldworkTraditionandItsFuture”,in:Gupta,A.;Ferguson,J.(eds.):Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and grounds of a field sci-ence.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,pp.47–65.

Kunze,D.(1983):“GiambattistaVicoasaPhilosopherofPlace:CommentsontheRecentArticle by Mills”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 8 (2/1983), pp.237–248.doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/622114.

https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1992.7.1.02a00020

https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331202005003004

https://doi.org/10.1353/rmr.2012.0007

https://doi.org/10.2307/622114



Lefebvre,H.(2007):The Production of Space. TranslatedbyDonaldNicholson.Oxford:BlackwellPublishing.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963):Structural Anthropology. Translated by Claire Jacobson. NewYork:BasicBooks.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (2013): Anthropology Confronts the Problems of the Modern World.TranslatedbyJaneMarieTodd.Cambridge(MA)–London:TheBelknapPress.

Lorenso, E. [Lourenço, E.] (2011): Razočarana Evropa: prilozi za jednu evropsku mi-tologiju.[A Europa Desencantada Para uma Mitologia Eropeia].TranslatedbyAnamarijaMarinović.NoviSad:MediterranPublishing.

Maier, J. et al. (1977): Sozialgeographie, Das Geographische Seminar. Braunschweig:Westermann.

Marinković,D.;Ristić,D.(2015a):“RegionalHeterotopiaofCentralEurope:‘lost’iden-tity in theprocessofdeterritorialisationofEurope”,Journal of International Relations and Development.doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2015.28(advancedonlinepublication,17thJuly)

Marinković,D.;Ristić,D.(2015b):“Konstrukcijasaglasnosti:svakodnevicaiprostornestrategijeneoliberalizma”[“ConstructionofConsensus:EverydayLifeandSpaceStrate-giesofNeoliberalism],Sociologija57(1/2015),pp.112–132.

Marinković,D.;Šljukić,S.;Ristić,D.(2014):“Odgenealogijekageo-epistemologiji:za-okretkalokalnostiprostora,vremenaiznanja”[“FromGenealogytoGeo-Epistemology:ATurntoLocalityofSpace,TimeandKnowledge”],Sociološki pregled48(3/2014),pp.333–352.

Marinković,D.; Ristić,D. (2016): “Foucault’s ‘Hall ofMirrors’: an investigation intogeo-epistemology”,Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 98(2/2016),pp.83–96.doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12092.

Marcus,G.E.;Fischer,M.M.J.(1986):Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experi-mental Moment in the Human Sciences.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Mead,G.H.(2003):Um, osoba i društvo sa stajališta socijalnog biheviorista[Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist].TranslatedbySrđanDvornik.Zagreb:JesenskiiTurk.

Mills,W.J.(1982):“PositivismReversed:TherelevanceofGiambattistaVico”,Trans-actions of the Institute of British Geographers 7 (1/1982), pp. 1–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/621908.

Montaigne,M.(1993):Essays.TranslatedbyMichaelAndrewScreech.London:PenguinBooks.

Montesquieu(2008):Persian Letters. TranslatedbyMargaretMauldon.NewYork:Ox-fordUniversityPress.

Neumann, I.B. (1999).Uses of the Other: ‘The East’ in European Identity Formation.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Paasi,A. (2001): “Europe as a Social Process and Discourse: Considerations of Place,Boundariesand Identity”,European Urban and Regional Studies8 (1/2001),pp.7–28.doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/096977640100800102.

Park,R.E.(1928):“HumanMigrationandtheMarginalMan”,American Journal of Soci-ology33(6/1928),pp.881–893.doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/214592.

Philo, C. (2003): “Foucault’s Geography”, in: Crang, M.; Thrift, N. (2003): Thinking Space.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,pp.205–239.

Pickles, J. (2009):Phenomenology, Science and Geography: Spatiality and the Human Sciences.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Robertson,G.etal.(1994):Travellers’ Tales: Narratives of Home and Displacement.Lon-donandNewYork:Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12092

https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12092

https://doi.org/10.2307/621908

https://doi.org/10.1177/096977640100800102

https://doi.org/10.1086/214592



Said,E.W.(1979):Orientalism.NewYork:VintageBooks.

Sax, W. S. (1998): “The Hall of Mirrors: Orientalism,Anthropology, and the Other”,American Anthropologist 100 (2/1998), pp. 292–301. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1998.100.2.292.

Schütz,A.(1944):“TheStranger:AnEssayinSocialPsychology”,American Journal of Sociology49(6/1944),pp.499–507.doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/219472/.

Shields,R.(2005):The Virtual.London–NewYork:Routledge.

Sibley,D.(1998):Geographies of Exclusion – Society and Difference in the West. London–NewYork:Routledge.

Simmel,G.(1950):“TheStranger”,in:Wolff,K.H.(ed.):The Sociology of Georg Simmel.Glencoe,(IL).TheFreePress,pp.402–409.

Smith,N.;Katz,C. (1993): “GroundingMetaphor:TowardsaSpatializedPolitics”, in:Keith,M.;Pile,S.(eds.):Place and the Politics of Identity.London–NewYork:Routledge,pp.66–81.

Soja,E.W.(1980):“TheSocio-SpatialDialectic”,Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70 (2/1980), pp. 207–225. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01308.x.

Soja,E.W.(1989):Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London–NewYork:Verso.

Stallybrass,P.;White,A.(1986):The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. Ithaca(NY):CornellUniversityPress.

Thomas,W.I.;Znaniecki,F.(1984):The Polish Peasant in Europe and America.Urbana–Chicago:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Thomas,W.I.(1967):The Unadjusted Girl: With Cases and Standpoint for Behavior Anal-ysis.NewYork:HarperandRow.

Veyne,P.(1997):“FoucaultRevolutionizesHistory”,in:Davidson,A.I.(ed.):Foucault and his Interlocutors.Chicago–London:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,pp.146–182.

Vico,G.(1948):The New Science.TranslatedbyThomasGoddardBergin,MaxHaroldFisch.Ithaca(NY):CornellUniversityPress.

Warf,B.;Arias,S.(2009):The Spatial Turn. London–NewYork:Routledge.

Weber,M.(1978):Economy and Society. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Williams,R.(2008):“Darkness,Deterritorialisation,andSocialControl”,Space and cul-ture 11(2008),pp.514–532.doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331208320117.

Wirth,L.(1958):The Ghetto.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Zieleniec,A.(2007):Space and Social Theory. London:SagePublications.

https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1998.100.2.292

https://doi.org/10.1086/219472/

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01308.x

https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331208320117



Dušan Marinković, Dušan Ristić, Žolt Lazar

Genealogija Drugog i prakse spacijalizacije

SažetakU radu polazimo od pretpostavke implicitne prisutnosti statičnog i nedijalektičkog prostora fizičke geografije u antropologiji i sociologiji devetnaestog stoljeća. Za razliku od antropologije koja je otkrila egzotičnog i udaljenog Drugog kao dramaturgiju u prostoru s nedostatkom povijesti, socio-logija Drugog njegovu društvenu značajnost otkriva na razini svakodnevno prisutne bliskosti doma. U radu tvrdimo da su otkriveni Drugi isprva bili spacijalizirani na nepovijestan i nedijalektičan na-čin – kao i sam prostor – a da je naknadna teorijska i epistemološka prostorna regionalnost dovela do regionalizacije Drugosti. U radu zaključujemo da su se diskursi mnoštva regionalno konstruira-nih Drugosti pojavili u antropologiji i društvenim znanostima tek nakon prostornog zaokreta i razu-mijevanja procesa spacijalizacije kao društvene tehnologije moći, odnosno proizvodnje prostora.

Ključne riječigeoepistemologija,Drugi,moć/prostor,regionalizacija,spacijalizacija


Genealogie des Anderen und Spatialisierungspraktiken

ZusammenfassungIn der Arbeit gehen wir von der Annahme einer impliziten Präsenz des statischen und nichtdia-lektischen Raums der physischen Geografie in der Anthropologie und Soziologie des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts aus. Anders als die Anthropologie, die den exotischen und fernen Anderen als Dra-maturgie in einem Raum mit Mangel an Geschichte entdeckte, bringt die Soziologie des Anderen dessen gesellschaftliche Bedeutsamkeit auf der Ebene der alltäglich präsenten Heimnähe ans Licht. In der Arbeit argumentieren wir, dass die entdeckten Anderen zunächst auf eine nichtge-schichtliche und nichtdialektische Art spatialisiert wurden – wie der Raum selbst – und dass die nachfolgende theoretische und epistemologische räumliche Regionalität zur Regionalisierung der Anderheit führte. In der Arbeit kommen wir zu dem Schluss, dass die Diskurse einer Vielzahl regional konstruierter Anderheiten in der Anthropologie sowie den Sozialwissenschaften in Er-scheinung traten, jedoch erst nach einer räumlichen Wende und nach dem Verständnis der Spati-alisierungsprozesse als gesellschaftliche Technologie der Macht bzw. der Raumproduktion.

SchlüsselwörterGeoepistemologie,Andere,Macht/Raum,Regionalisierung,Spatialisierung


Généalogie de L’Autre et pratiques de spatialisation

RésuméLe point de départ de ce travail consiste en la supposition implicite que l’existence d’un espace statique et non dialectique relevant de la géographie physique est présent dans l’anthropologie et dans la sociologie du XXème siècle. Contrairement à l’anthropologie, qui a découvert un Autre exotique et éloigné et qui, à défaut d’histoire en a fait un récit dans l’espace, la sociologie de l’Autre découvre quotidiennement son importance sociale au niveau d’une présence proche du foyer familiale. Dans ce travail nous affirmons que les Autres, découverts en premier, ont été spatialisés de manière non historique et non dialectique – comme l’espace lui-même – et que la régionalité spatiale, théorique et épistémologique, qui lui a suppléé, a conduit à une régionalisa-tion de l’Autre. Ce travail nous mène à la conclusion selon laquelle les discours de la multitude sur les Altérités construites sur le plan régional sont apparus en anthropologie et en sciences so-ciales en tant que technologies sociales du pouvoir, à savoir en tant que productions de l’espace, et cela suite au tournant spatial et à la compréhension du processus de spatialisation.

Mots-clésgéo-épistémologie,Autres,pouvoir/espace,régionalisation,spatialisation

genealogy of the other and practices of spatialization

Documents