Beyond indefinite extension: about Bruno Latour and urban space

Abstract

This paper explores the internal architecture of actor‐network theory as much as it explores the way it understands the architecture and geography of the social universe. Moving back and forth between urban studies, sociology and metaphysics, it especially deals with Bruno Latour's problematic relationship with infinite regress.

Enroling around—Reconfiguring place and space in the wake of a new reception centre in a small rural town

“…Even smaller towns are not ‘single places’ inhabited by uniform communities (Massey, 1993a; cf. Lecomte, 2013). When space is viewed from a topological perspective, actors who are geographically distant can appear tightly connected, while people living next to each other may have almost no associations between them (Latour, 1996; Müller, 2015).…”

“…Towns are collections of actor‐networks that may be local in scale, or they may reach far beyond the immediate geographical area and extend across continents (Latour, 2005, pp. 173–179; Lecomte, 2013). Technological development during the past decades has made this a very prevalent feature of modern life, even in smaller communities.…”

“…Towns are collections of actor-networks that may be local in scale, or they may reach far beyond the immediate geographical area and extend across continents (Latour, 2005, pp. 173-179;Lecomte, 2013).…”

Effective Methodologies to Study Affects: New Tools for Engaging With Socio-Spatial Relations

“…Today’s cities are integrating two processes, which at times seem almost in conflict: diversity and abstraction. That is, today’s cities encapsulate generic and standardized global places (e.g., airport cities, convention centers, banks, and train stations) (Lecomte, 2013), growing verticality that includes large-scale urban planning directed towards volumetric cities (e.g., increased developments of high-rise complexes) (Drozdz et al, 2018), and growing dependence on technology for planning and policymaking (Rose, 2017), while with the increased mobility and immigration of people all around the world, present-day cities are also very diverse (Sandercock, 2000; 2004). These dynamic characteristics of present-day cities invite us to reconsider the tools and methods with which we can discern contemporary socio-spatial relations, and recent planning literature questions the methods and tools used to studying socio-spatial relations, cities, and urban planning today (Brenner et al, 2011; Buser, 2014; Kurath et al, 2018; Rydin & Tate, 2016; Sachs Olsen & Juhlin, 2021; Shilon & Kallus, 2018).…”

“…1.‘Global Places’ are characterized by similarities, standardization and generic patterns. Accordingly, the differences between a commercial center, a bank, and an airport might be difficult to currently discern (see Lecomte, 2013, p . 472).…”