First order space
From Geography
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
First order space is a concept introduced by [[Wolfgang Zierhofer]][http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/html/images/people/Wolfgang_Zierhofer.jpg]. The geographer´s intention to distinguish different orders of space has to be regarded in his general understanding of space, based on theories of [[Language Pragmatic Action Theory]] (Zierhofer, 2002). According to Zierhofer first order space in short means ‘the most abstract and general form of differentiating’ (Zierhofer, 2002 in Schlottmann, 2008). This concept has a general taken-for-granted status and therefore not really up for negotiation in everyday communication between individuals (Schlottmann, 2008). | First order space is a concept introduced by [[Wolfgang Zierhofer]][http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/html/images/people/Wolfgang_Zierhofer.jpg]. The geographer´s intention to distinguish different orders of space has to be regarded in his general understanding of space, based on theories of [[Language Pragmatic Action Theory]] (Zierhofer, 2002). According to Zierhofer first order space in short means ‘the most abstract and general form of differentiating’ (Zierhofer, 2002 in Schlottmann, 2008). This concept has a general taken-for-granted status and therefore not really up for negotiation in everyday communication between individuals (Schlottmann, 2008). | ||
| - | Space in this context must be taken as [[non-essentialist]] and | + | Space in this context must be taken as [[non-essentialist]] and [[non-transcendental]]. It is thus not ''a priori'' but instead a scheme of reference used by [[human agents]]. This is however not a central object of analysis. Instead the concepts communication, speech acts, validity claims and other similar concepts are central to his scientific perspective (Zierhofer, 2002, pp. 1370-1371). Since space is taken as a ‘scheme of interpretation’ Zierhofer takes the possibility to introduce distinctive categories of space. He chooses to base the categories on a gradation system of orders. This is how the term first order space was coined (ibid., p. 1369) |
== Orders of space == | == Orders of space == | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
"The benefit of this distinction between first and second order spaces is to combine a notion of space as fundamental epistemic category, on the one hand, with the infinite empirical richness of particular object-spaces and locational schemes, on the other hand" (Zierhofer, 2005, p. 32). | "The benefit of this distinction between first and second order spaces is to combine a notion of space as fundamental epistemic category, on the one hand, with the infinite empirical richness of particular object-spaces and locational schemes, on the other hand" (Zierhofer, 2005, p. 32). | ||
| - | + | As noticed ‘first space order’ is a very abstract form of space. Therefore carries second order space a more “specific meaning”, which is further determined than first order spaces. As an example we can consider the aspect of time. This concept adds a temporal dimension to certain spaces and thus forms one of many classes of second order space (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1369). Zierhofer also admits that the distinction between different order spaces actually also ought to be regarded as a second order space, for it specifies and thus can be classified as a second order space class about ordered space (ibid.). | |
| + | |||
| + | The first order space as Zierhofer says that it "is nothing but the bare possibility to draw one or more distinctions" (ibid.). To make these distinctions we need to have underlying terms or codes to make sure we can make this distinction. For example: here/there, yes/no and we need an amount of units to make it possible to rank these units. However, what is important is "to realize that the function and value of a universal epistemic category rests in the possibility to be applied to contents of any kind, but that this does not imply a claim of universal [[validity]]’’ (Zierhofer, 2005, p. 32). You could only compare an interpretation of first order space as a ‘cognitive tool’ with a [[non-representational]] approach. In this context a cognitive tool is a distinction which is produced and used in certain communications (Zierhofer, 2005). | ||
| + | |||
---- | ---- | ||
'''See also:''' [[Space]] according to [[Wolfgang Zierhofer]] | '''See also:''' [[Space]] according to [[Wolfgang Zierhofer]] | ||
| - | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Latest revision as of 13:50, 20 October 2012
First order space is a concept introduced by Wolfgang Zierhofer[1]. The geographer´s intention to distinguish different orders of space has to be regarded in his general understanding of space, based on theories of Language Pragmatic Action Theory (Zierhofer, 2002). According to Zierhofer first order space in short means ‘the most abstract and general form of differentiating’ (Zierhofer, 2002 in Schlottmann, 2008). This concept has a general taken-for-granted status and therefore not really up for negotiation in everyday communication between individuals (Schlottmann, 2008).
Space in this context must be taken as non-essentialist and non-transcendental. It is thus not a priori but instead a scheme of reference used by human agents. This is however not a central object of analysis. Instead the concepts communication, speech acts, validity claims and other similar concepts are central to his scientific perspective (Zierhofer, 2002, pp. 1370-1371). Since space is taken as a ‘scheme of interpretation’ Zierhofer takes the possibility to introduce distinctive categories of space. He chooses to base the categories on a gradation system of orders. This is how the term first order space was coined (ibid., p. 1369)
Orders of space
Wolfgang zierhofer made a distinction in space, he divided space in 'first order space' and 'second order space'. Zierhofer describes the advantage of distinguishing between first and second order space as follows:
"The benefit of this distinction between first and second order spaces is to combine a notion of space as fundamental epistemic category, on the one hand, with the infinite empirical richness of particular object-spaces and locational schemes, on the other hand" (Zierhofer, 2005, p. 32).
As noticed ‘first space order’ is a very abstract form of space. Therefore carries second order space a more “specific meaning”, which is further determined than first order spaces. As an example we can consider the aspect of time. This concept adds a temporal dimension to certain spaces and thus forms one of many classes of second order space (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1369). Zierhofer also admits that the distinction between different order spaces actually also ought to be regarded as a second order space, for it specifies and thus can be classified as a second order space class about ordered space (ibid.).
The first order space as Zierhofer says that it "is nothing but the bare possibility to draw one or more distinctions" (ibid.). To make these distinctions we need to have underlying terms or codes to make sure we can make this distinction. For example: here/there, yes/no and we need an amount of units to make it possible to rank these units. However, what is important is "to realize that the function and value of a universal epistemic category rests in the possibility to be applied to contents of any kind, but that this does not imply a claim of universal validity’’ (Zierhofer, 2005, p. 32). You could only compare an interpretation of first order space as a ‘cognitive tool’ with a non-representational approach. In this context a cognitive tool is a distinction which is produced and used in certain communications (Zierhofer, 2005).
See also: Space according to Wolfgang Zierhofer
References
N.D. (n.d.). Dr. Wolfgang Zierhofer. Retrieved from[2] at 16 October 2012.
Schlottmann, A. (2008). Closed spaces: we can’t live with them, can’t live without them. Envoronment and Planning D: Society and Space 2008. Volume 26, pages 823-841.
Zierhofer, W. (2002). Speech acts and space(s): Language pragmatics and the discursive constitution of the social. Environment and Planning A, 34, 1355-1372.
Zierhofer, W. (2005). State, power and space. Social Geography, 1, 29-36. Retrieved from[3] at 10 October 2010. p.32.
Contributors
Published by: no data available.
Eddited by Robbert Wilmink--RobbertWilmink 20:54, 12 October 2011 (CEST)
Links added and page edited by Aafke Brus --AafkeBrus 10:27, 1 November 2011 (CET)
Enhanced by Janna Völpel s3015041JannaVolpel 15:24, 7 May 2012 (CEST)
Page edited by Renate van Haaren, --RenateVanHaaren 13:01, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
![[1]](http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/html/images/people/Wolfgang_Zierhofer.jpg){kind=link}