Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space

THREE: The Production of Space

92 chapter three The Production of Space unless space is conceptualized as a quite separate reality from nature, the production of space is a logical corollary of the production of nature. Several assumptions would be required concerning the meaning of space and the relationship between space and nature, but the argument demonstrating the production of space would be fairly straightforward. The problem of course lies in the assumptions because not unlike “nature” the concept of space tends to be taken for granted, its meaning unproblematic, while in fact it is a vague concept with a multiplicity of sometimes contradictory meanings. No matter the critical stance we take toward the concept, it is difficult to escape some basic notions of space—space as a field, as a container, or as simple emptiness; in Western societies today this view of space is virtually instinctive in The Production of Space 93 common parlance. But “in the interests of science,” as Albert Einstein wrote in explicit reference to the concepts of space and time, “it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them.”1 Rather than simply rely on the authority of the previous chapter, then, we shall attempt to derive the argument of the production of space on its own merits; only in the final stages will it be linked with the argument around nature. This will not only provide a stronger argument for the production of space but will afford us the chance of examining critically the concept of space. This in turn should provide an adequate conceptual foundation for examining the geography of capitalism and specifically for showing the relation between the production of nature and the unevenness of capitalist development. Our concern here is with geographical space which we can take in its most general sense as the space of human activity, from architectural space at a lower scale up to the scale of the entire surface of the earth. Another, more specific, meaning of geographical space will evolve as the analysis develops; the important point here is to distinguish geographical space from the many other meanings and treatments of space which cannot be considered here.2 Since the early 1960s the conceptualization of geographical space has been the object of considerable discussion. Two particular conceptions of space have been highlighted: absolute space and relative space. The discussion emerged in reaction to the socalled quantitative revolution in geography, which materialized in the early 1960s. Previously geographers had tended to rely almost exclusively upon the absolute conception of space, but a broader view of the subject-matter accompanied the technical innovations of the “quantitative revolution.”3 In these different conceptions of space, very different relationships to nature and to material events are implied. In talking about the production of space, we are trying to take the discussion a step further. But to do this it is necessary to be aware of the origins and meaning of the distinction between absolute and relative space. In fact these concepts originate in the physical sciences and in the philosophy 94 Chapter Three of science, and so it is to the scientific treatment of space that we turn first in order to understand the broader historical and epistemological origins of the concepts that help shape our present comprehension of the geography of capitalism. I. Space and Nature In 1920, only a few years after the publication of the general theory of relativity, Alfred North Whitehead declared: “It is hardly more than a pardonable exaggeration to say that the determination of the meaning of nature reduces itself principally to the discussion of the character of time and the character of space.”4 Recognizing the intimate relationship that exists between space and nature, Whitehead evoked the radically new post-Newtonian conception of space implied by relativity theory. But insofar as he saw space as somehow primary to nature, he retained a vision of space that had become social as well as scientific orthodoxy at least since Newton. Historically, space has always been conceptualized in relation to nature, but the substance of the relationship has been viewed in very different ways. Newton’s conception of absolute space is the exception that proves the rule. In order to view space as a quite independent entity existing separate from matter (absolute space) Newton also had...