Given the problematic status of “space” in Western thought, it would be better to say that it is a matter of constructing a new place with a new form—a new way of building not just at or on a place but building place itself, building it anew and otherwise.
EDWARD S. CASEY, The Fate of Place
That was Casey’s response to Derrida’s exhortation, which urged contemporary architects to construct ‘a new space and a new form, to shape a new way of building’.[1] A new space, as argued for by Derrida, or a new place, as requested by Casey? As I previously discussed in the article The Alexander-Eisenman Debate on the Background of Different Spatial Theories, those are two distinct, if not opposite, spatial interpretations of architecture. What is the current state of affairs?
At RSaP—Rethinking Space and Place, I have argued that both a new place and a new space are necessary for spatial practices to align with our recently acquired and widely accepted understanding that we are living in a reality fundamentally different from the past epochs—a new reality, properly (see New Realism for Architects).
Decades have passed since Derrida and Casey presented their arguments, but they remain relevant, as spatial questions take centuries to converge, reflecting our fundamental understanding of reality. Over the last century, our understanding of reality has undergone significant changes, including the emergence of a new physics, a new cosmology, a new conception of nature, as well as the dawn of new epochs or ages: the Anthropocene and the Age of Information. As a result, fundamental concepts like place and space, which are necessary to address different phenomena of reality, need to be reevaluated. Fundamentally, both authors recognized a widening gap between reality and the human approach to it through building and dwelling, or habitation;[2] since spatial concepts are basic concepts to understanding and complying with forms of building and dwelling, one demands a new space, while the other requires a new place. Given the significant ontological and epistemological divide that exists between concepts of space and place, the divergent views of the two authors are symptomatic of the variability and confusion surrounding questions of space, place, and spatial practices.[3] Since the first articles at RSaP, I’ve been exploring a new concept of place—place as system of processes—through which building place itself, as in the expectations of Casey (in the article The Place of Architecture and the Architecture of Place-Part III: A Case Study, I have concretely explored some of the implications of that concept on architecture—implications that architects are becoming increasingly aware of over time, as I evidenced in the article New Realism for Architects, Paragraph 2.1, especially). This new place encompasses all aspects of reality, from natural to cultural, and views space as an object of thought (i.e., a symbolic aspect of culture), rather than a physical instance of nature, contrary to the numerous physicalist interpretations of space that have undermined the concept’s significance over the last three centuries (across various fields including physics, philosophy, psychology, architecture, art, the social sciences, literature, politics, economy…). According to this view, constructing a new place involves not only building it but also deconstructing the existing space and rebuilding a new space, as Derrida observed, albeit—I am suggesting—with a somewhat different approach than that explored by architects a few decades ago (physical space > ideal space as an emergence from the concrete dynamics of place—as I pointed out in the article The Place of Space). In this way, by recognizing the deep connection between the concreteness of place and the abstractness of space, and distinguishing their ontological and epistemological aspects, spatiality can fulfill its role by aligning with our new understanding of reality as the intertwined environmental stage of natural (concrete, mind-independent) and cultural (abstract, mind-dependent) dynamics.
Notes
[1] Edward S. Casey, The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 319-320.
[2] Ibid., 319.
[3] Casey deserves credit from all interested in spatial questions for having recognized ‘the problematic status of space’ and for writing The Fate of Place, a book that explores the diverse stories and meanings behind the concepts of place and space (Place and Space: A Philosophical History). Ivor Leclerc is another author who recognized the problematic nature of spatiality and its underlying assumptions, and his works, such as The Nature of Physical Existence and The Philosophy of Nature, contributed to clarifying spatial concepts from historical, physical, and philosophical perspectives (Concepts of Place, Space, Matter, and the Nature of Physical Existence, Place, Space, Matter, and a New Conception of Nature and Place, Space, and the Philosophy of Nature).
Works Cited
Casey, Edward S. The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.
Leclerc, Ivor. The Nature of Physical Existence. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1972.
—. The Philosophy of Nature. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986.
Image Credits
Featured Image: Archi-texture, Undergraduate Spatial Study for a Skyscraper, Alessandro Calvi Rollino Architetto, CC, BY-NC-SA
CC, BY-NC-SA, RSaP-Rethinking Space and Place, 2025. All content including texts, images, documents, audio, video, and interactive media published on this website is for non-commercial, educational, and personal use only. For further information, please reach out to: info@rethinkingspaceandplace.com
