Intertextuality, the referential illusion and the production of a gay ghetto

Abstract

This paper challenges Lefebvre's distinction between Representations of Space and Spaces of Representation. Most current work in this area has assumed modernist conceptions of power, thereby interpreting representations of space (conceived space) as the property of the powerful who alone possess the ability to abstract space for their particular ends. Contrary to Lefebvre, I suggest that representation and abstraction are not the agents of state capitalism alone but are also manifested in ‘counter’ discourses. As an example of a ‘counter discourse’ I draw upon a series of editorial articles written in a local gay-oriented newspaper about a gay enclave in Vancouver, Canada. I argue that these depictions cloud the distinctions as practised between conception, abstraction and the imaginary in urban space. They also serve to promote one interpretation of space above others, and in that sense they colonize the experience of everyday life in their own way. The act of ‘speaking for’ presupposes a certain power, and in these cases, highlights the fact that the power of representation and abstraction does not only occur at the state or ‘system’ level. I suggest that by overcoming the assumption of a zero-sum ontology of power, one can see how a variety of agents in the urban context engage in the attempt to carve out their ‘own’ spaces of stability in the urban social imaginary.

Keywords:

• space
• representation
• power
• newspapers
• gay space
• Lefebvre

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Ryan Conlon, Celia Roberts and my anonymous referees for their comments and helpful suggestions on previous drafts of this paper.

Notes

1 Harvey (1989) differs more significantly from most uses of the term. He sees Spaces of Representation as ‘mental inventions’: discourses, utopian plans that imagine new meanings or possibilities for spatial practices. Harvey himself argues that the distinction as he sees it between Spaces of Representation and Representations of Space are too vague. However, it is Harvey's interpretation of Spaces of Representation as ‘the imagined’ as opposed to ‘the lived’ or ‘social space’ that is the source of the vagueness, by confusing what one could call ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ knowledges, or the mental and the social qualities of space.

2 These articles appeared in the following order: Yeung 1997; Kirkby 1997a; Brewin 1997; Kirkby 1997b; Kirkby 1998; Yeung 1999a; Yeung 1999b; Kirkby 1999a; Kirkby 1999b; Yeung 1999c; Yeung 1999d; Xtra! West 2000.