ABSTRACT

The second pitfall I hope to avoid is an absence of tension between theoretical reflection and empirical research. In works on the city and the urban, empirical observation tends to occupy a paradoxical position; it is often used as proof of the veracity of the theories expressed. This use, both selective and non-exhaustive, is opportunist. Dialectic theory and empirical research is often missing in the construction of the models we have presented. Upon reading, many works arouse the same suspicions - that of witnessing an author's use of certain empirical findings to justify, rather than expound, on a pre-established theoretical position (Kaplan, 1996). Those irksome findings that contradict the said position tend, not surprisingly, to be overlooked. The Anglo-Saxon reception of Marc Auge's work "Non Lieux" (1992) ("Non-Places") is in this regard completely symptomatic. Religiously cited, this little book is often used as proof of the disappearance of regional borders. And yet while this book compares places (identity-based, relational and historical) with non-places (non-identity-based, non-relational and unhistorical) (Auge, 1992: 100), it was heavily criticized in the social sciences for this dichotomy. Auge defines the space of travelers and commuters as the archetypal non-place (Auge, 1992: 110). The extent to which the book has been criticized since its publication in 1992 shows that the space thresholds of mobility can themselves be places and references in relational terms -very much so, in fact - and even be identity-based, most notably by the intermediary of memory. In short, Marc Auge's theory has been invalidated. This however does not stop other authors from using his text as support for tht: theory of the nonplaces associated with the world of flows.