Week Two: Lefebvre, Simonsen, and Tuan
“A tool or machine enlarges a person’s world when he feels it to be a direct extension of his corporeal powers,” asserts Tuan. He then identifies mechanical modes of transportation as such extensions (53). However, he also argues that, “conquest of space can mean its diminishment. The speed that gives freedom to man causes him to lose a sense of spaciousness (54). ” My question is, can online communication be seen as a mechanical mode of transportation (transcending time and geographical space via communication), enlarging the user’s world at the click of a button? And if so, how can it cause man to “loose a sense of spaciousness?”
According to Tuan, “Enclosed and humanized space is place. Compared to space, place is a calm center of established values,” and asserts that, “Human beings require both space and place. Human lives are a dialectical movement between shelter and venture, attachment and freedom” (54). If we consider the online community as this space, within the shelter of our homes, providing a single point of departure with various points of arrival (blogs, social media, websites) would online space be considered “space” or “place,” or could it be characterized as both?
Kirsten Simonsen comments on Lefebvre’s need for “juxtaposition” with feminist literature when theorizing the body. I would also be interested to see an analysis of multiple representations of the body.
Definition:
Space: is abstract and material. It is simultaneously generative naturally, socially and politically and it is regenerative. It is expansive, but can be restrictive. It is self-reflective, and can be violent, formulaic, and focused; it is also open, confined, free and profitable.