Space, Knowledge and Power

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Space, Knowledge and Power

Introduction

Spatial inscription on knowledge and power has a tremendous effect on the problems regarding health, population and several economical and political ends. The institutionalization of architecture has great influence according to institutions and modern reason. It has significance on the political functions and social relations, which enable power expansion and its resistance in equal measure. The availability of spatial resources for settlement of humans enables the heterogeneous relationships to be formed. These relationships become vital for definition of positions, which cannot be superimposed or equated. Technology and evolution of communication determines the speed and necessity of defining the relationships realized. Space is responsible for discourses on knowledge and power, which are transformed into actual power relations.

Discussion

During the eighteenth century, reflection on architecture was based on the techniques and aims of government societies. The manner in which infrastructure was determined in planning of the urban settings was directly related to the governance and enabling of political literature use (Reynders 2). Government techniques were devoted to ensure absolute control through planning and urbanism and spatial architecture. Changes from the sixteenth century lie in collective facilities, urbanism, and private architecture as compared to the evolution from the eighteenth century. Change was not only realized in the political setup, but also effected even from architects to architecture. Attention was increased in the form and choice of their decisions regarding urbanism and architecture. Rationality of the governments was expressed through the territory and mindset of achieving their functions.

The importance of space grew at an increased rate. Governance was no longer based on the territorial protection and sovereignty. Spatial address on urban spaces was enhanced to deal with problems such as revolutions, epidemics, and other dangers. The relation between space and power was galvanized through the clamor for railroads. The new phenomenon created a shift from the traditional importance of road network into nature and history of the society (Reynders 6). Developments of discoveries like electricity further helped the course of its importance. The exercising of political power and territorial space enhanced the need for architecture as a tool for increase in power retention and knowledge upheaval. It created new problems, which were unfamiliar to both governments and societies at the time.

The three great variables of communication, territory, and speed have influenced the roles of architects in power and utilization of space over the years. The variables distance the impact from the architects’ domain. Architecture can be used to produce results that are positive towards intentions of liberation (Reynders 8). This is possible when they coincide with reality of people’s practices and exercising of freedom. The social problems are all under the need for space as well as governance from power and the people. Space plays an integral part of communal life. It enables the exercise of power. In the present setting, space can be categorized as shifting from capitalist and reactionary dimension, which existed in the past. It is termed as revolutionary according to its effect on the discourse of power and knowledge.

A continuous subversion and appropriation is witnessed on human effort and ecology. Interaction between systems of consumption, communication, and production are enabled through urban networking of the conglomerates. Co-existence patterns are created through mobility increase in technology and expressions of visible nature in urban setting (Focault 11). The spatial concerns on how urban physical infrastructure appropriates any autonomous and casual practices are evident in some cities around the world. The constituents of the city are critical of control on the unpredictability and fluidness through understanding the spatial effect on each dimension. Interstitial spaces of available opportunities exist through practices of the autonomous nature in society. This is for example realized in Chicago urban ecology.

Technology has played a significant role in the utilization of space. Social infrastructure has been developed with the transformative process that technology has enabled. The advancement of architecture, expressions through communication technology have all enabled the spatial differences to be articulated and made easier for interactions. Humans have the need of expression through spatial-temporal means. In the urban fields, physical abstract relations prevent the attainment of equilibrium (Williams 13). The imperatives of space, thus disallow the internal contradictions and efforts of traction to make differences. Architecture is marked as transgress and disruption by the pessimist in curatorial obsessions as well as characteristics of insurgent nature. Spatial relationships and itineraries in urban conditions are focused from typologies, hierarchies, and obsessions.

Conclusion

The society under the political and economic ends is determined by spatial inscription on power and knowledge. Architecture, when institutionalized, influences institution of modern reasons. Social relations and political functions enable power expansion through the advents of architecture in any setting. Resources from spatial entities affect the availability of heterogeneous relationships and settlement of humans. The equation and superimposition of positional definition are translated and transformed from the heterogeneous relationships formed. This strengthens the need for spatial understanding as it affects governance, solving of human problems, availing of resources and development. Space is responsible for discourses on knowledge and power, which are transformed into actual power relations.

Works Cited

Focault, Michael. “Space, Knowledge and Power.” Interview. 1982.

Reynders, Hennie. “A Coyote at Zero-Zero- itineraries in the reclaiming of urban infrastructure.” Center for Research on Socio-Cultural Change. (2011): 1-8. Print.

Williams, Daniel E. Sustainable Design: Ecology, Architecture, and Planning. Hoboken: Wiley, 2007. Print.