Comments on “Theorizing Sociospatial Relations”
Comments on “Theorizing Sociospatial Relations”
复制标题
对“社会空间关系理论化”的评论
DOI：
10.1068/d9107a
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Casey
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Casey
“社会空间关系理论化”是对当前社会特定空间关系范式的深思熟虑和挑衅性尝试。它对此类关系的一维模型（即那些将领土、地点、规模或网络视为具有排他性解释和预测价值的模型）提供了有效的批判。在作者看来，这些模型所声称的远远超出了它们所能提供的范围。每一个都对社会空间关系的“具体复合体”进行了部分分析；没有一个足以给出整个这种关系的充分理论。特别是，每个人都犯了一个原始错误，其原因是过于狭隘和分析，概念说明过于模糊，或者过于还原论。每一个都宣称自己对于理解社会关系的空间方面具有独特的有效性；因此，每个人都犯了过度“中间派”的错误（例如，“以地点为中心”、“以网络为中心”等）。作者通过与哲学解构并行的批判，论证了这种中心主义的盲目性和缺陷，从而未能给出空间社会关系所要求的“厚重描述”。对于 Jessop、Breener 和 Jones (2008) 来说，如果要追求这种描述的理想，就应该引用这四个维度中的至少两个或更多。但即使这还不够，他们更强烈的建议是，所有四个维度都需要发挥作用，尽管不一定同时发挥作用：相反，建议采用替代方法的“螺旋运动”。简而言之，“研究者可以因此从不同的切入点探索社会世界，同时仍然以复杂的具体分析结束，其中每个时刻都找到其适当的描述性和解释性的权重”（第394页）。他们将所得模型描述为“社会空间关系的多态性”之一（第 396 页）。我认为这个建议非常有前途，而且它肯定比一维替代方案更可取。但它带来了两个基本问题：（1）如果我们要转向多元范式，什么保证四个维度而不是 n 个 4 维度将发挥作用？四元数模式的吸引力确实是强大的——我们可以从以前的思想家那里看到：亚里士多德提出了四种基本原因，康德提出了四种判断，海德格尔提出了事物的四种宇宙维度（地球、天空、凡人和神）。荣格提出了四种基本心理类型对“社会空间关系理论化”的评论
`̀ Theorizing sociospatial relations'' is a thoughtful and provocative foray into current paradigms of socially specific spatial relations. It offers an effective critique of onedimensional models of such relationsönamely, those that privilege territory, place, scale, or network as possessing exclusive explanatory and predictive value. On the authors' account, these models claim far more than they can deliver. Each gives a partial analysis of the `̀ concrete-complex'' of sociospatial relations; none suffices to give an adequate theory of the whole of such relations. In particular, each commits an error of pars pro toto, and it does so by being too narrow and analytical, too vague in conceptual specification, or too reductionistic. Each declares itself to be uniquely valid for the grasp of the spatial aspects of social relations; thus each commits the error of being unduly `̀ centrist'' (eg, `̀ place-centric'', `̀ network-centric'', etc). Proceeding by a critique that is parallel to deconstruction in philosophy, the authors demonstrate the blindness and shortcomings of such centrisms, which thereby fail to give the `̀ thick description'' that spatial-social relations calls for. For Jessop, Breener, and Jones (2008), at least two or more of these four dimensions should be invoked if the ideal of such description is to be pursued. But even this is insufficient, and their stronger proposal is that all four dimensions need to be put into play, albeit not necessarily all at once: rather, a `̀ spiral movement'' of alternative approaches is recommended. In short, `̀ Investigators could thereby explore the social world from different entry points whilst still ending with complex ^ concrete analyses in which each moment finds its appropriate descriptive-cum-explanatory weight'' (page 394). They describe the resulting model as one of `̀ polymorphy of sociospatial relations'' (page 396). I regard this proposal as very promising, and it is certainly preferable to the one-dimensional alternatives. But it brings with it two basic problems: (1) If we are to move to a pluralistic paradigm, what guarantees that four and not n 4 dimensions will be in play? The attraction of the quaternion schema is indeed powerfulöas we can see from previous thinkers: Aristotle posits four basic kinds of cause, Kant four sorts of judgment, and Heidegger four cosmic dimensions of things (earth, sky, mortals, and gods). Jung, who proposed four basic psychological types Comments on ``Theorizing sociospatial relations''