Diverging conceptions of space in the spatial disciplines – how to move on?

Abstract

Following decades characterised by a lack of theoretical debates in Hungary, discussions about questions of spatial theory in the spatial disciplines have become increasingly enlivened in the past fifteen years. Broadly speaking, two main conceptions of space have evolved: according to the first, space is a given aspect of reality that exists independently of human meaning-making; the second holds that space is fundamentally a social construction and thus always shaped by human interpretation and practices.

This article aims to advance the – largely stalled – debate by highlighting some aspects of the theoretical discussions in ‘Western’ scholarship. In particular, the paper provides an overview of how the labels of ‘positivist’ and ‘postmodernist’ – which frequently figure in Hungarian debates – have seen their role diminish as tools of demarcation in the ’Western’ discourse, and how ontological pluralism has become widely accepted in spatial theory.

Second, the article focuses on the difficulties of establishing a dialogue between the proponents of diverging (in particular, realist and non-realist) conceptions of space. It is argued that the key problem lies in scholars often assessing ‘other’ approaches from their own philosophical assumptions. Misunderstandings around the notion of ‘discourse’ are discussed to illustrate the above-mentioned difficulties: while for realist-inclined scholars, discourse refers to language and its use, those aligning with non-realist (especially poststructuralist) perspectives discourse is regarded as an ontological field in which human practices are constituted.

The paper argues that these and similar difficulties could be overcome by a greater philosophical awareness and if opposing approaches were thus assessed not on the grounds of one’s own, but on the basis of their ontological and epistemological premises. Bearing in mind both that labeling of spatial theories is closely linked to the politics of science, and that the actual differences between diverging philosophical assumptions cannot really be overcome, the paper concludes by calling for a greater openness towards ‘other’ approaches. This openness can facilitate reflexivity and help recognizing ways in which different approaches might potentially complement each other. It is argued that developing such a more open and reflexive attitude is crucial to asserting the broader societal relevance of the spatial disciplines in Hungary and beyond.