ABSTRACT
Urban sociology lacks developed theories about the material dimension of urbanity. A schematic summary of the different positions of this chasm can be portrayed like this: Technical-scientific urban analyses are deterministic, and ignore the fact that space is socially produced and that knowledge is socially constructed! Social scientists say. Social constructivism has contributed greatly to scientific research and has allowed for much power criticism, but as important as it is to question objectivity claims, it is equally important to acknowledge the limitations and paradoxical effects of this questioning activity. Many urban-geographical and urban-sociological studies tend to neglect the fact that the human body is a materiality that cannot go through walls. Discourse analysis as a method is important from a social-scientific perspective because it facilitates the deconstruction of common conceptual meanings and a questioning of political consensus. In sum, studies that evolved during geography's quantitative era depicted, as McDowell points out, a landscape without power, poverty, or political struggles.
