Argument

Space and class: a critique of Urry by Richard Harris

The territorial dimension of class relations is a pressing political issue. The con- tinuing ‘crisis’ of the inner city, the regional ‘problem’, national and international ‘recession/depression’, are at the forefront of political debate in western Europe and North America. The quality of this debate depends largely on the way space and class, and their relationship, are defined. Because the nature of this relation- ship is not yet fully understood, however, John Urry’s recent contribution to this journal (UKY, 1981) is a welcome one.

Urry’s point of departure is the accusation that ‘social scientists in general and sociologists in particular have paid insufficient attention to spatial variations in social phenomena’ (p. 455). Given this, he develops three arguments. First, he suggests that spatial relations are an integral and significant element of society. Second, he asso- ciates this argument with a ‘realist’, as opposed to a ‘positivist’, conception of science (cf. Keat and Urry, 1975). Finally, he applies these insights to the analysis of con- temporary class relations within an international context. Specifically, he argues that the continuing internationalization of capital has led to an ‘increasing fragmentation of classes on the local level’ and to the ‘heightened importance of non-class based “local social movements”’ @. 455). He concludes by asserting that, in the actual development and, therefore, in our understanding of class relations, space matters.

Urry says much that is important and, I believe, true. Unfortunately, his argu- ment is seriously flawed. Beginning from an unsubstantiated premise, Urry goes on

1 16 Space and class: a critique of Urry

to examine the relationship between space and class as if a number of relevant intellectual traditions scarcely existed. Consequently, he fails to identify his distinc- tive contribution to continuing debates on these issues, while some of his specific recommendations appear quite arbitrary.

Initially, it is difficult to disagree with Urry’s basic premise because it is not clear what it means. What actually constitutes ‘sufficient’ attention to the question of ‘spatial variations in social phenomena’? T h s is not an easy question to answer, yet it is important for his subsequent argument. The proper basis from which Urry’s accusation should be made would be a careful, and wide-ranging, review of the major relevant intellectual traditions within the social sciences. Without it, he can- not make any incisive comments about the manner in which social scientists have dealt with the question of spatial relations. Unfortunately, such a review does not exist (but see Sack, 1980).

What does exist is a more ad hoc body of critical commentary. The critics fall essentially into two groups. On the one hand, there are those who admonish fellow social scientists for their neglect of spatial relations. On the other hand, there are those who criticize ‘spatial analysts’ for their preoccupation with geometric form and their neglect of social process. This, and the general question of the nature of space, has been a subject of persistent discussion within the discipline of geography, although its implications clearly transcend disciplinary boundaries. Among geo- graphers, for example, Sack’s (1974) critique of ‘spatial separatism’, makes some of the points which Urry worries over. Urry ignores Sack, along with many other sympathetic critics, thus missing the opportunity to sharpen, and perhaps to challenge, his own argument.

The critics are not isolated. They have contributed to a substantial body of writing which has dealt constructively with the relationship between space and society. At the urban scale, for example, the one with which I am most familiar, the question of space has thoroughly permeated the literature. Most notably it informs what were probably the two most influential books on the city in the past decade, Harvey’s Social justice and the city and Castells’s The urban question (Harvey, 1973; Castells, 1977). Much of this writing has been specifically concerned with the question of class. There are many discussions of the processes of class formation at a variety of scales, most notably the national (e.g. Thompson, 1968) and the urban (eg. Foster, 1974; Gray, 1976).

Urry does not set out to review this literature. Rather, he introduces isolated pieces (Castells here, Foster there, Massey somewhere else) in an essentially ad hoc fashion. This has significant consequences. First, it encourages Urry - and the incautious reader - to underestimate the quantity of work produced. Second, and more seriously, it prevents him from arriving at a proper estimate of its qualitative significance. By failing to identify the whole, Urry misses the full significance of the parts. Third, it prevents Urry from showing how his contribution is distinctive. The lasting impression is that of a voice crying in the wilderness. This is evidently not the case, as I am sure Urry would agree; his argument might be strengthened (and amended) if he made a more explicit acknowledgement of that fact.

Richard Hamk 1 1 7

Following his discussion of space, society, and class, Urry turns his attention to an analysis of class relations in the contemporary international setting. The obvious shift is from the theoretical and epistemological levels of argument to the empirical. Simultaneously, and more subtly, the focus switches from a discussion of spatial relations in general to a much more particular argument about the im- portance of different, and specific, scales of analysis in relation to one another. While Urry may be clear in his own mind that this dual shift is occurring, I do not believe that he gives his reader sufficient warning of the nature and implications of what he is doing. The danger is clear: by tying a general point to a particular argument, and by failing to clarify the contingent nature of this link, Urry places his general argument at unnecessary risk.

Urry deplores the supposed concern of previous writers with class relations at the national scale on the grounds that, with the internationalization of capital, the ‘local’ scale has become increasingly important. He argues that the locality becomes a base for the development of ‘local social movements’ which serve to fragment the working-class response to capitalism. This argument is developed out of a critique of Goldthorpe’s recent work in Britain (Goldthorpe, 1980). In addition to Gold- thorpe’s emphasis upon the national dimension of class and class formation, Urry asserts that ‘it would seem that two further important and related concepts would be: 1 the local patterns of income, occupational and class mobility; and 2 the organization of the local labour market, its sectoral, occupational, and gender changes; and the dominant forms of class struggle’ (p. 463). How does Urry arrive at this conclusion? Why these, and only these, two considerations? Where, within the vast literature on class, mobility, local labour markets, and class struggle, do these statements fit? We are left groping.

From these assertions Urry passes on to a consideration of recent trends in the international division of labour which, he argues, have made the ‘locality’ more important (p. 464 ff.). On the former question, Urry’s argument is, I think, sound and well-documented. My concern is with his conclusions regarding the implications of this new division of labour for our understanding of the ‘locality’. Urry uses the term ‘ambiguously to refer to both the ‘non-national’ and labour markets defined in terms of travel-to-work areas’ (p. 464). Not only the definition, but also its logical basis, is extremely unclear. A couple of pages after this definition, Urry makesrefer- ence to two ‘rival principles’ by which an area may be designated as a region, ‘homo- geneity’ and ‘self-sufficiency’. These do not exhaust the possibilities, however, and one of the more common p:inciples by which regions have been identified, that of functional integration (not synonymous with ‘self-sufficiency’) is neglected. The discussion is incomplete. Furthermore, it is not related to the (prior) definition of ‘locality’! In the light of this extremely questionable definition and portrayal of ‘local- ity’ and region, I am rather doubtful about the meaning, and therefore the usefulness, of Urry’s conclusions that ‘ “local social movements” seem to be an important non- class consequence of the new international division of labour’ (p. 469). Indeed, Urry seems to share my unease. Why, otherwise, does he place the key phrase in inverted commas? I sense that he is not at all sure of the ground on which he is trying to stand.

1 18 Space and class: a critique of Uny

There is a further issue here and one which is perhaps the most difficult and important of all. Is it correct to argue that political movements at a local, ‘non’ or subnational, scale must be characterized as ‘non-class’? While he does not deal with this question directly, Urry implies that this is indeed the case. Denying CasteUs’ argument that many recent urban social movements have reflected the ‘growing homogeneity in the interests of all popular classes’ (Castells, cited in Urry, p. 469), Urry argues that local homogenization serves to fragment social classes, thus pro- ducing ‘non-class based political movements’ (p. 469). The immediate point of this argument, which is not explicitly dealt with, is the denial that a ‘popular class alliance’ is a proper political strategy for the working class or for socialists. I do not propose to enter the debate on this question. I would argue, however, that this debate has no more (or, presumably, less) relevance to our understanding of class politics at the local level than at the national. ‘Popular class’ alliances can be pro- moted or challenged, can develop or decline, at any scale. At present it does not seem that the pressures for such alliances are especially strong at the local level: is local ‘boosterism’ stronger now than in 1890, say, or 1935? 1 doubt it, and in any event Urry does not consider the question. In other words, I believe that Urry’s introduction of the ‘popular class’ issue into his discussion of the ‘locality’ is spurious and misleading.

The really important question concerns the manner in which interests are defined. Such a definition may be based upon the criterion of territory or of class. Between these two, there is a constant tension but also, if we are to take seriously the arguments against spatial separatism, a necessary complementarity. If space is integral to society, the definition of interests in general, and of class interests in particular, must incorporate a spatial dimension. The question, of course, is how? It is, I believe, the most serious limitation of Urry’s paper that he fails to identify and adbess this question. I do not have the answer, but I believe that a useful way to begin to disentangle its political implications is to distinguish between political activities which are territorially based and those which are territorially defined’. All political activities are territorially based, whether that base be the neighbourhood, the city or labour market area, the region, the nation, or the international com- munity. A union local, for example, is territorially based, often being restricted in areal extent to Urry’s ‘labour market defined in terms of travel-to-work areas’. To the extent that it acts as an organization of the working class, however, identifying the interests of its members with those of workers in adjacent labour markets and further afield, the union local transcends a purely areal definition of interests. In contrast, a territorially defined ‘community group’, or, for that matter, a state government (local, national, or international), to the extent that it speaks for the interests of all those within its boundaries, and against those living beyond, may fairly be charged with contributing to class fragmentation. What Urry terms ‘local social movements’ may cause fragmentation; they may, however, be useful, and indeed unavoidable and indispensable, elements in a wider political movement.

This distinction is discussed in relation to the politics of residential segregation in Harris (1983).

Richard Harris 1 19

By failing to clarify the meaning of region and locality, and by lumping together many diverse activities into the catch-all of ‘local social movement’, Urry has con- fused rather than clarified an important political issue.

My comments have been critical but, I hope, constructively so. I agree with much that Urry says about the importance of the spatial dimensions of society and class, and about their neglect. I believe that the arguments could be strengthened by a more thorough, and less idiosyncratic, examination of the relevant literature. In some cases, such an examination might lead us substantially to qualify, if not to contradict, what he asserts. John Urry has identified an important question. His failure is in not seeing the question as part of a continuing debate.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Chris Hamnett, David Ley, Gerry Pratt, and Carol Town for their comments on this critique.

References

Cast&, M. 1977: The urban question. London: Edward Arnold. Foster, J. 1974: C b s stmggle and the industrial revolution: ear& industrial capital-

Goldthorpe, J. 1980: Social mobility and class structure in modem Britain. Oxford:

Gray, R.Q. 1976: The Labour aristocracy in Victorian Edinburgh. Oxford: Claren-

Harris, R. 1983: Residential segregation and class formation in the capitalist city.

ism in three English towns. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Clarendon Press.

don Press.

&ogress in Human Geography (forthcoming). manuscript.

Harvey, D. 1973: Social justice and the city. London: Edward Arnold. Keat, R. and Urry, J. 1975: Social theory as science. London: Routledge and Kegan

Sack, R.D. 1974: The spatial separatist theme in geography. Economic Geography

1980: Conceptions of space in social thought. Minneapolis: University of Minne-

Thompson, E.P. 1968: The making of the Englhh working class. Harmondsworth:

Urry, J. 198 1 : Localities, regions and social class. International Journal of Urban

Paul.

50,l-19.

sota Press.

Penguin.

and Regional Research 5,455-73.

120

La maniire dont les classes sont r6parties dans I’espace pr6sente d’importantes consbquences sur le plan politique. La rkcente discussion sur ce sujet par John Urry (dans l’lnternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research, volume 6 ) , dans laquelle il soutient que l’espace n’a pas 6tb consid6r6 suffisamment par les sociologues, est la bienvenue mais comporte quelques faiblesses s6rieuses. I1 omet d’identifier et de consid6rer une grande partie de la litt6rature pertinente sur cette question. I1 sous-estime en condquence l’ampleur et la porthe de cette littbrature, tout en omettant de dkfinir la nature particuli6re da sa propre contribution.

Son argument substantif, concernant la maniire dont les ‘mouvements sociaux locaux’ servent i fragmenter la classe ouvriire, est bas6 sur une d6fmition discutable da la ‘localit6 comme Ctant n’importe quelle unit6 non nationale. I1 omet de poser la question importante qui est de savoir si les mouvements politiques I’bchelle locale doivent Btre d6nu6s de signifi- cation SUI le plan des classes. Il implique cependant qu’il en est ainsi en su&rant que la localit6 assume des relations sp6ciales quant au d6veloppement des alliances de classes populaires. Le lien est contestable et il sp6cifie m6dioaement les questions qu’il convient de rbsoudre. Toutes les formes d’activit6 politique doivent avoir une base territoriale. C’est seulement des activit6s qui sont territorialement d6finies que l’on peut dire qu’elles encouragent immanquablement la fragmentation des classes. En ces termes, il est possible d’accentuer la discussion des mouve- ments sociaux locaux. En omettant de clarifier ce que l’on entend par localit6 et en regroupant ensemble al tout hasard de nombreuses activit6s diverses sous l’appelation globale de ‘mouve- ment social local’, Urry a embrouill6 une question de politique importante au lieu de l’bclaircir.

Space and class: a critique of Urry

Die riumliche Verteilung der Klassen hat wichtige politische Folgen. John Urrys neueste Abhandlung uber dieses Thema (International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Band 6 ) , in der er behauptet, daO dem Raum von Sozialwissenschaftlem nicht geniigend Beachtung geschenkt werde, wird zwar begnil)t, aber es werden auch emste Fehler darin aufgedeckt. Er hat es unterlassen, einen groi3en Teil der einschlagigen Literatur uber dieses Thema anzugeben und zu priifen. Deshalb unterschatzt er den Umfang und die Bedeutung dieser Literatur, wiihrend er es gleichzeitig unterlst, das charakteristische Wesen seines eigenen Beitrags zu definieren.

Sein wesentliches Argument beziiglich der Art und Weise, auf die ‘lokale Sozialbewegungen’ dam dienen, die Arbeiterklasse zu fragmentieren, beruht auf einer fragwiirdigen Definition der ‘Lokalitat’ als jede nichtnationale Einheit. Er geht nicht auf die wichtige Frage ein, ob poli- tische Bewegungen auf lokaler Ebene ihrem Wesen nach ‘klassenlos’ sein mussen. Er unter- stellt jedoch, daf3 das so ist, indem er behauptet, daO die Lokalitat ein besonderes Verhiiltnis zur Entwicklung populirer Klassenbundnisse hat. Die Verbind ung mui3 angezweifelt werden, und die Probleme werden nur schlecht spezifniert. Alle Formen politischer Tatigkeit miissen eine territoriale Basis haben. Nur von solchen Tatigkeiten, die territorial d e f ~ e r t werden, kann behauptet werden, dat3 sie die Klassenfragmentierung unweigerlich begiinstigen. So ist es dann moglich, die Diskussion lokaler Sozialbewegungen zu verschirfen. Da von Urry nicht gekliirt wird, was Lokalitiit bedeutet, und da er viele verschiedene Tatigkeiten einfach unter dem Sam- melbegriff ‘lokale Sozialbewegung’ zusammenf&t, hat er eine wichtige politische Frage noch undurchsichtiger gemacht, anstatt sie zu klien.

La modalidad de distribucidn de las clases en el espacio tiene importantes consecuencias pollti- cas. La reciente exposicidn de John Urry sobre este tema, en la revistalnternational Journal of Urban and Regional Research, volumen 6 , en que afiuma que el espacio ha recibido insuficiente atencidn por parte de 10s especialistas en ciencias sociales, se acepta como una importante aportacidn pero tiene sus faltas. Urry no identifka ni revisa gran parte de la literatura pertin- ente sobre el tema. POI consiguiente subestima la magnitud y significado de dicha literatura, y al mismo tiempo no define la naturaleza distintiva de su propia contribucibn.

Su notable argument0 respecto a la manera en que 10s ‘movimientos locales sociales’ h e n para fragmentar a la clase trabajadora, se basa en una definicidn cuestionable de la ‘lealtad’ como unidad no nacional. Otro fall0 es que no pregunta si 10s movimientos politicos a escala local deben tener un cardcter ‘aclasista’. No obstante, afuma esto implicitamente al sugerir que

Richard Harris 12 1

la localidad tiene una relaci6n especial con el desarrollo de las alianzas de la clase popular. Este enclace es cuestionable y 10s aspectos del mismo se especifican muy escasamente. Todas las formas de actividad politica deben basarse en su territorio. S610 las actividades territorialmente definidas son aquellas de las que se puede deck invariablemente que promueven la fragmenta- ci6n de las clases. En estos t b i n o s es posible hacer m h aguda la discusi6n de 10s movimientos sociala locales. Al no clarificar la siffnificaci6n de localidad, y a l juntar muy diversas activi- dades en un p&do y llamarlas ‘movimiento social local’, Urry ha confundido mils que clari- ficado un importante tema politico.