Thursday, September 23, 2021

URBAN SOCIOLOGY (SEMESTER-5) TIME AND SPACE (David Harvey)

David Harvey, who is a leading theorist in the field of urban studies , in his work “THE URBAN EXPERIENCE”  studied the forces that frame the urban process and the urban experience under capitalism, emphasizing on the themes of money, space and time; as they help in attaining clarity and frame the reference within which urbanisation proceeds. These themes i.e. money, space , and time may initially appear abstract. However, they are embedded in a social process that creates abstract forces that have concrete and personal effects in daily life.

 

Space and time-

Space and time may initially appear as natural but they are social constructs and ways of measuring, organising and perceiving them varies from one society to another.  Within increased social transaction of space, time and space have shrunk. According to David Harvey, urbanism is not an autonomous process but a part of a larger economic and political processes and changes.  He states that modern urbanism is when this space is continuously reconstructed.  This is decided by large firms who decide the allocation of resources, and by the government’s policies which defines the landscape of the city.

 

MONEY

The concrete abstraction of money: Labour processes are very complex and varied but often one tends to club them as ‘production of goods’. The ‘concrete labour’ that a person contributes to produce ‘use value’ gets represented in the magnitude of money (which lies external to the ‘use value’ and ‘put in labour’ in terms of service/ product). David Harvey points out that this money paid is abstract in nature because it is symbolic of the material relation between the consumer and the producer, without actually representing any of them. It is reflective of the ‘use value’ of a product and not the labour inputted to produce it. Money exists outside of the ‘labour’, ‘labourer’, ‘produced’ and the ‘consumer of the product’.

Although not done previously, the money in the form of abstraction can be used to concretely discuss labour. In capitalism, labour is a motion and hence, can be measured in time. The amount of money to be paid becomes directly proportionate to the time spent in labour.

 

Community of money:  Money in its abstraction is present in most of the production relations and hence, gradually acquires a status of community. This community is marked by individualism, certain conceptions of liberty, rights to appropriation, freedom of contact. The idea of freedom that Harvey adopts here is borrowed from Georg Simmel. Simmel states that freedom refers to freedom from the will of others. In a capitalist society people are interdependent on other individuals such as the supplier, supervisor, manufacturer, co-operators etc. and hence, never truly free from the will of others. However, the money owners (bourgeoisie) have the benefit of choosing who they interact with and hence, while being interdependent are also free at the same time.

According to Georg Simmel, money is a great leveller and democratic because it only concerns itself with objective relationships. It objectifies relationships and levels everyone by looking at them through the ‘objective-rational lens’, removing the subjective characteristics attached to them.

 

Abstract symbolic modes of thought: In capitalist societies, due to the frequent usage of the abstract one gets conditioned to think in the abstract manner for non-economic activities as well. The frequency of usage of symbolic commodity like money (versus tangible commodity such as gold) is directly proportionate to one’s dependence on symbolic modes of thought that can match ‘concrete abstraction’.

According to Karl Marx, a quasi-religious quality is required to sustain the complex transactions of the modern money economy. The concepts of measuring, weighing and calculating in transactions, pressurizes individuals to indulge in such processes in real life relationships as well. In Simmel’s terms this refers to intellectualisation that functions as a secular religious for economy based on money.

 

TIME

Temporal discipline; compression of time: Temporal discipline means a more adequate and predictable measurement of time for the orderly conduct of business. With the development of machinery (clocks and bells), time is used to control and call workers and separate them from natural rhythm of life. It is through that that the managers get power to keep track of labour time. Another example of technology being used to discipline time is artificial lighting which is used to extend the day length. With the barrier of darkness removed, a universal concept of time emerged. No w the power to compress work hours lay in the hands of the bourgeoisie and they dictated the maximisation of time to extract the most of the labourer’s surplus labour time.

According to Simmel, ‘technique of metropolitan life is not conceivable without all of its activities and reciprocal relationships being organised and co-ordinate din a punctual way such that it transcends all subjective elements (meal time, leisure time etc.).

 

SPACE

The money economy and quantification of time has led to qualitative changes to the contemporary meaning of space. Harvey links most of this change to the advanced made in communication and transportation technology.

Following Marx, Harvey points out how even land has become a commodity and the fact that one uses money to buy it objectifies the relationship between individuals and land. This monetisation eliminates the absolute values of the place. Secondly, this opens up a scope for concentration of social power in a space. Thus, money decentralizes participation and centralizes immense money in the hands of few. Since the right over land can only be determined by money, thus only money is the factor to determine power. Money allows people to participate in faraway causes (instead of the ones at hand) despite being mentally and physically absent because of their rightful monetary contribution.

 

Compatibility of the created space with class relations maintenance: According to Harvey, the urban space is partially responsible in maintaining interclass relationships as only the wealthy can reside in the centre while the poor capture the peripheries of this space. Money thus, allowing for land segregation also allows for class division. The centralizing and decentralizing of money is implicated through the changing meaning of land.

 

REVULSION AND REVOLT 

With the new sense of time as chronological net, money as monetary net- the social power gets concentrated stifling the ‘aesthetic charm’ of living life. David Harvey mentions the concept of Urban villager as proposed by Herbert Grans to demonstrate the loss of authentic community that urban protests such as ‘Take back the night’ and civil rights movement were aimed at. Grans elucidated with an example of an Italian- American family living in West End of Boston. They were slowly moving from rural towns to urban villages and there they could restrain much of their formal systems. The society had a ‘peer-group structure’ which means that the strongest group of an individual lies with their friends. Harvey wants to explain here that living patterns branded as anti-social disappear along with the substandard and low income housing.

 

MONEY, SPACE AND TIME AS SOURCE OF SOCIAL POWER

The interconnections between command of money, space and time matter the most and give enormous power to a person. For example a super market manager knows that the command over a strategic space within the overall construction of social space is worth gold. The control over spatial organisation and authority over use of space tell who is powerful and also contribute to the reproduction of social power relations. For example the professionals such as engineers , who have the intellectual skill to shape the social space materially come to acquire a certain power and convert the specialised knowledge into financial benefits. 

David Harvey sides another example from household conditions to tell the interconnections between money and time as source of power. He says that Mel which are nurse assume that bringing home money give them the right to command the time of spouse and children. the gender conflict is most often about who is at the centre of social spatial organisation. At the end, Harvey says that concrete abstraction of money space and time cannot be defined independently. For instance, money arises out of exchange of labour and represents social labour time, at the same time,  world market that is space depends upon the rise of appropriate money form and the spread of psychological three conditions necessary to Money's proper use. 

 

CONCLUSION

Money appears to be prominent but, space and time gives most of the power to individuals. The control over spatial organisation and authority over use of space tell who is powerful and also contribute to the reproduction of social power relations. Capitalism has produced an urbanised human nature endowed with a very specific sense of time, space and money as resources of social power, and with sophisticated abilities and strategies to win back from one corner of urban life what may be lost in another. Every political movement or an observer must at some point confront the confusions of urbanisation. It is only when one reflects upon their rationality and social meaning of the conceptions of time, space and money can one liberate themselves to think about an urbanised but non-capitalist world.

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

WELCOME

This is my little attempt of lending a helping hand to all those who struggle to find content while writing answers in sociology. NOTE- TYPE...