This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kärrholm, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Materiality of Territorial Production

A Conceptual Discussion of Territoriality, Materiality, and the Everyday Life of Public Space

Lund University

This article brings together research on territoriality and actor-network theory to develop new ways of investigating the role of materiality and material design in the territorial power relations of urban public places. Using the public square as a main example, the author suggests new ways of conceptualizing the production and stabilization of territories in the everyday urban environment. Setting out from a brief outline of the history of territoriality research, the traditional approaches are reappropriated from the viewpoint of actants rather than persons or institutions, suggesting a distinction between four different forms of territorial production. Some material ways of stabilizing the effects of these territorial productions are then conceptualized. The author argues that public space can be seen as constituted by a territorial complexity, thus pointing to the relationship between materiality and public space, via territorial stabilization and production.

Key Words: territoriality • materiality • public space • actor-network theory (ANT) • everyday life • urban design

References

• Agnew, J. (2000). Territoriality. In R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt, & M. Watts (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography (pp. 823-824). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Albertsen, N., & Diken, B. (2003). What is the social? Retrieved May 14, 2004, from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Albertsen-Diken-What-Is-the-Social.pdf
• Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Altman, I., & Chemers, M. (1980). Culture and environment. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Bell, P.A., Greene, T.C., Fisher, J.D., & Baum, A. (1996). Environmental psychology (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
• Brown, B.B. (1987). Territoriality. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 505-531). New York: John Wiley.
• Brown, S.D., & Capdevila, R. (1999). Perpetuum mobile: Substance, force and the sociology of translation. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor-network theory and after (pp. 26-50). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers/ Sociological Review Monograph.
• Cohen, A. (1985). The symbolic construction of community. London: Routledge.
• Cresswell, T. (1996). In place/out of place. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Cresswell, T. (2004). Place. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Crouch, D. (1994). Territories, places and cultural identity. Odense, Denmark: Odense University Press.
• Dant, T. (2004). Materiality and society. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
• de Certeau, M. (1988). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• de Laet, M., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science, 30, 225—263.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Delaney, D. (2005). Territory, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Deleuze, G. (1999). Foucault. London: Continuum.
• Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Dovey, K. (1999). Framing places. London: Routledge.
• Edney, J.J. (1976). Human territoriality. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, & L. G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 189-205). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
• Forty, A. (2000). Words and buildings. London: Thames & Hudson.
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge ( C. Gordon, Ed.). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
• Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-228). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. New York: Free Press.
• Gottman, J. (1973). The significance of territory. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
• Gottman, J. (1975). The evolution of the concept of territory. Social Science Information, 14 (3-4), 29-47.[Free Full Text]
• Greimas, A.J. (1987). On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory. London: Frances Pinter.
• Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Hajer, M., & Reijndorp, A. (2001). In search of new public domain. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Nai.
• Häkli, J. (1994). Territoriality and the rise of the modern state. Helsinki: Geographical Society of Finland.
• Hall, E. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday.
• Hammad, M. (2002). The privatisation of space. Lund, Sweden: LTH.
• Johnston, R. (1996). Territoriality. In A. J. Kuper (Ed.), The social science encyclopedia. London: Routledge.
• Kärrholm, M. (2005). Territorial complexity in public places—A study of territorial production at three squares in Lund. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 2005(1), 99-114.
• Kärrholm, M. (2007). Territory, a short introduction, Delaney David [Book review]. Geografiska Annnaler, 89, 76-78.
• Korosec-Serfaty, P. (1973). The case of newly constructed zones: Freedom, constraint and the appropriation of spaces. In R. Küller (Ed.), Architectural psychology: Proceedings of the Lund Conference. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
• Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters (pp. 103-131). London: Routledge.
• Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3, 228—245.[CrossRef]
• Latour, B. (1997). Trains of thought, Piaget, formalism and the fifth dimension. Common Knowledge, 6, 170—191.
• Latour, B. (1998). How to be iconophilic in art, science, and religion? In C. A. Jones & P. Galison (Eds.), Picturing science, producing art (pp. 418-440). London: Routledge.
• Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. London: Oxford University Press.
• Law, J. ( 1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Law, J. ( 2002). Objects and spaces. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 91-105.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Law, J., & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: An inquiry into spatialities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 19, 609—621.[CrossRef]
• Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2003). Object lessons. Retrieved from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Law-Singleton-Object-Lessons.pdf
• Lee, N., & Brown, S. (1994). Otherness and the actor network: The undiscovered continent. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 772—790.[Abstract]
• Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
• Lofland, L. (1998). The public realm. New York: Aldine de Gruyters.
• MacAndrew, F. (1993). Environmental psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Madanipour, A. (2003). Public and private spaces of the city. London: Routledge.
• Malmberg, T. (1980). Human territoriality. The Hague: Mouton.
• Malmberg, T. (1994). Er territorialitet tabu? In J. Tonboe (Ed.), Territorialitet, Rumlige, historiske og kulturelle perspektiver. Odense, Denmark: Odense Universitetsforlag.
• Markus, T.A. (1993). Buildings and power. London: Routledge.
• Mol, A. & Law, J. ( 1994). Regions, networks and fluids: Anemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science, 24, 641—671.[Abstract]
• Mol, A., & Law, J. (2002). Complexities: An introduction. In A. Mol & J. Law (Eds.), Complexities: Social studies of knowledge practices (pp. 1-22). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Mol, A., & Law, J. (2004). Embodied action, enacted bodies: The example of hypoglycaemia. Body & Society, 10(2-3), 43-62.[Abstract]
• Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). (1989). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
• Paasi, A. (1996). Territories, boundaries and consciousness. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
• Pels, D., Hetherington, K., & Vandenberghe, F. (2002). The status of the object: Performances, mediations and techniques. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 1-21.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Pessoa, F. (2002). The selected prose of Fernando Pessoa. New York: Grove Press.
• Pollini, G. (1999). Socio-territorial belonging. In R. Gubert (Ed.), Territorial belonging between ecology and culture (pp. 1-34). Trento, Italy: University of Trento.
• Rapoport, A. (1994). Spatial organisation and the built environment. In T. Ingold (Ed.), Companion encyclopaedia of anthropology (pp. 460-502). London: Routledge.
• Sack, R. (1986). Human territoriality, its theory and history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Sheller, M. (2004). Mobile publics: Beyond the network perspective. Environment and planning D. Society and Space, 22, 39-52.
• Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2000). The city and the car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 737-757.[CrossRef]
• Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2003). Mobile transformations of "public" and "private" life. Theory, Culture & Society, 20(3), 107-125.[Abstract]
• Shils, E. (1975). Center and periphery. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Soja, E. (1971). The political organization of space. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
• Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern geographies. London: Verso.
• Steinbock, A. (1995). Home and beyond. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
• Vandenberghe, F. (2002). Reconstructing humants: A humanist critique of actant-network theory. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 51—67.[Free Full Text]
• Warnier, J.-P. (2001). A praxeological approach to subjectivation in a material world. Journal of Material Culture, 6, 5—24.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Weintraub, J. (1997). The theory and politics of the public/private distinction. In J. Weintraub & K. Kumar (Eds.), Public and private in thought and practice (pp. 1-42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Space and Culture, Vol. 10, No. 4, 437-453 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1206331207304356


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kärrholm, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?