ABSTRACT
We have made a distinction between a formal plan and an actual space, between a representation of ideology in the first, and a constitution of social practice in the second. We have examined in the last chapter how the formal plan of Beijing represents imperial ideology. In this chapter we will examine how an actual space constitutes social practice. ‘Actual’ space is understood as a layer of space accommodating, as well as being embedded in, daily life and social practice. It is a layer of space unfolding in real social operations. It tends to be invisible on the surface of the city plan. It lies beneath that surface. If the surface symbolizes or represents a theoretical discourse, this actual space frames and accommodates a field of messy and ‘dark’ transactions that are not essentially symbolic or representational. To open up this layer of space, we will conduct a preliminary archaeological excavation first, to expose a tectonics of this space at a physical level. We will then move on to look at it socially, that is, examine it as a space of the state imposed from above, and as a space of society developed from within the social body.
