Place and Space

The term space and its history:

There are several definitions of space, including different views and concepts. Most
influential is the understanding of space by Isaac Newton, who described space as the
“absolute space” or “the container-space”. Absolute space can be seen as an infinite
expanding box, existing without filling of material matter. Later the concept of Newton lost
its conceptual autonomy and was subverted into the general space-time-matter-concept from
Albert Einstein. The existence of space independent from the material world is no longer
assumed in the new definition (Blotevogel 2005).
An important contribution to understand the complexity of a place is the so called „Matrix-
Space“ -definition by D. Läpple (1991), containing social, economic and cultural aspects. He
assumes that „spatiality“ is an inherent aspect of social practices and directly connected to
different forms of social structures, constituting the difference to ‘space’.
Different anglo-american social scientists like Harvey or Castells conceptualized their
understanding of space in a similar way (Blotevogel 2005).

Therefore perceiving space as a polydimensional metric frame system, in which objects can
be located and portrayed (Blotevogel 2005), one can derive the term place.

Place

A place is a space spatially defined through objects, that, being individually interpreted, gets
its meaning by a mix of social relations as well as cultural, legal, historical and economic
aspects influencing it (Blotevogel 2005).
Each place has a distinct materiality, an environment, which is historically constructed
through roads, objects, design etc. Places can be defined as the “sites where people live, work
and move, and where they form attachments, practice their relations with each other“ (Leitner
et al. 2008: 161). By that, a complicated set of social relations is generated, which is
individually experienced (Martin et al. 2003). Through regulating daily routines and social
relations, places become an instrument of power and representation (Martin et al. 2003). With
the setting of social relations changing, a place underlies a constant changing of itself and its
meaning. Places can be manipulated, resignified and subverted to achieve different processes
or questioning the status quo (Leitner et al. 2008).

Sources:
Blotevogel, H.H. (2005) “Raum”, in Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ed.),
Handwörterbuch der Raumordnung, Hannover: ARL.
Läpple, D. (1991): Essay über den Raum. In: Häusser- mann, H. et al. (Hrsg.): Stadt und Raum.
Pfaffenweiler, S. 157–207.
Leitner H., Sheppard E. and K.M. Sziarto (2008) “The spatialities of contentious politics”,
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33(2).
Martin, D., E. McCann and M. Purcell (2003) “Space, Scale, Governance and Representation:
Contemporary Geographical Perspective on Urban Politics and Policy”, Journal of Urban Affairs
25(2).

Further literature:
Harvey, D. (1985). Consciousness and the urban experience: Studies in the history and theory of
capitalist urbanization. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hague, C./ Jenkins, P. (2005): Place Identity, Participation and Planning. London: Psychology Press.
KLÜTER, H. (1986): Raum als Element sozialer Kommunikation. Gießen.
Lefebvre, H. (1991): The production of space. (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell. (Original work published 1974).

By Johannes Griem and Laurenz Blaser