Prof. Dr. Antje Schlottmann

Deutsche Homepage

Multiple Spatial Dimensions in Political Discourses – Inducing the Metropolitan Region of Central Germany

Theoretical Framing

In their inspiring paper on socio-spatial theory Jessop, Brenner and Jones (2008) identified four distinct spatial lexicons that have been developed by social scientists over the last thirty years: territory, place, scale, and network (Dicken, Kelly, Olds & Yeung, 2001; Paasi, 2004; Sheppard, 2002). These lexicons are associated with specific spatial turns and, although they problematize different issues, they should actually be seen as closely intertwined theoretically and empirically (Leitner, Sheppard & Sziarto, 2008).

However, advocates of a given turn are often tempted to focus on one dimension of spatial relations, neglecting the role of other forms of socio-spatial organisation (Leitner et al., 2008). Such one-dimensionalism falls into the trap of conflating one part (territory, place, scale, or networks) with the whole (the totality of socio-spatial organisation). In contrast, Jessop et al. (2008) argue for all four dimensions to be put into play, albeit not necessarily all at once.

Elsewhere, Terlouw and Weststrate (2013) argue for an overdue shift of attention from the historical evolution of current regions to the circumstances in the present in which regions are actually constructed. The starting point, then, is not the social construction of a specific region, but the motives behind the use of regions by local stakeholders in different situations to promote their interests. In other words, regions as socio-spatial relations (regions-in-becoming) are conceptualised as publics-in-stabilisation (Metzger, 2013).

Yet, Terlouw and Weststrate’s (2013) one-sided focus on ‘scale’ must be seen as problematic leading to the sidelining of other spatialities in favour of scale as primus inter pares (Casey, 2008), first among equals, thereby contradicting this project’s emphasis on the important interplay between different spatial dimensions (Jessop et al., 2008).

Aims and Objectives

Drawing on earlier studies (Felgenhauer, et al., 2005; Schlottmann et al., 2007; Schlottmann, 2008) on spatial semantics of Central Germany (Mitteldeutschland), this project aims to achieve the following two main objectives. First, the project explores the role and motives of political stakeholders inducing multiple spatialities of the metropolitan region Central Germany – a loose political alliance comprising the three German federal states Thuringia, Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt. Second, the multi-dimensionality of spatial organisation is emphasised in this research analysing interdependencies between different spatial lexicons of scale, territory, and networks in the context of the metropolitan region.

The general and comparative questions therefore become:

  • Why and how do political stakeholders utilise regional spatialities to promote their specific interests?
  • Which spatial references are drawn upon and how do different lines of argumentation fluctuate in multiple contexts?

The spatial strategies of political stakeholders never focus on only one spatiality, but on a patchwork of related territories, scales, and networks. Instead of tracing the evolution of patterns of regional formation, as reflected in a single spatiality over time, the aim of this project is to contribute to current debates in regional and political geography by comparing intentions of local stakeholders shifting their support for a region, conceptualised as various partially overlapping spatialities, in order to secure/promote their interests to accommodate changing circumstances.

Methodology

This research is conceptualised as a qualitative micro-analytical study focusing on official documents and expert interviews as resources. A multitude of analytical methods will be deployed in this venture including discourse (Dittmer, 2010), metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 2011), and argumentation analysis (Toulmin, 2003).

Project Members

This is a conjoint research project conducted by Prof Antje Schlottmann and Roger Baars; funded since 2013 by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Presentations

“Regional Governance and the ‘Phantom Region’ Mitteldeutschland: The Political Dimension of Spatial Concepts”. Paper presented at ‘Phantom Borders in the Political Behaviour and Electoral Geography in East Central Europe’ conference. The European University Viadrina (Frankfurt/Oder), 14.-15. November 2013.

"Inducing the Metropolitan Region of Central Germany - Multiple Spatial Dimensions of Politico-Economic Discourses." Paper presented at 'Regional Studies Association Winter Conference. Mobilizing Regions: Territorial Strategies for Growth'. Holiday Inn London Bloomsbury, London, UK. 22. November 2013.

References

  • Baars, R. & A. Schlottmann (2015): Spatial Multidimensionalities and the politics of regions: The ‘Phantom Region’ of Central Germany. Erdkunde (Special Issue).
  • Baars, R. & A. Schlottmann (2015): Taking Borders Elsewhere – The Political Performance of Phantom Borders in Central Germany? Europa Regional (Special Issue).Baars, R. & A. Schlottmann (2015): Spatial Multidimensionalities and the politics of regions: The ‘Phantom Region’ of Central Germany. Erdkunde (Special Issue).
  • Casey, E. S. (2008). Questioning "Theorizing Sociospatial Relations". Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), 402-404.
  • Dicken, P., Kelly, P. F., Olds, K., & Yeung, W.-C. H. (2001). Chains and Networks, Territories and Scales: Towards a Relational Framework for Analysing the Global Economy. Global Networks, 1(2), 89-112.
  • Dittmer, J. (2010). Textual and Discourse Analysis. In D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang & L. McDowell (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Geography (pp. 274-286). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
  • Felgenhauer, T., Mihm, M., & Schlottmann, A. (2005). The Making of Mitteldeutschland: On the Function of Implicit and Explicit Symbolic Features for Implementing Regions and Regional Identity. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 87(1), 45-60.
  • Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing Sociospatial Relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3), 389-401.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2011). Metaphors We Live By (6th ed.). Chicago, IL: Universitry of Chicago Press.
  • Leitner, H., Sheppard, E., & Sziarto, K. M. (2008). The Spatialities of Contentious Politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(2), 157-172.
  • Metzger, J. (2013). Raising the Regional Leviathan: A Relational-Materialist Conceptualization of Regions-in-Becoming as Publics-in-Stabilization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1368-1395.
  • Paasi, A. (2004). Place and Region: Looking Through the Prism of Scale. Progress in Human Geography, 28(4), 536-546.
  • Schlottmann, A., Felgenhauer, T., Mihm, M., Lenk, S., & Schmid, M. (2007). >Wir sind Mitteldeutschland!< Konstitution und Verwendung territorialer Bezugseinheiten unter raum-zeitlich entankerten Bedingungen. In B. Werlen (Ed.), Sozialgeographie alltäglicher Regionalisierungen - Band 3 (pp. 297-). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
  • Schlottmann, A. (2008). Closed Spaces: Can't Live With Them, Can't Live Without Them. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(5), 823-841.
  • Sheppard, E. (2002). The Spaces and Times of Globalization: Place, Scale, Networks, and Positionality. Economic Geography, 78(3), 307-330.
  • Terlouw, K., & Weststrate, J. (2013). Regions as Vehicles for Local Interests: The Spatial Strategies of Medieval and Modern Urban Elites in the Netherlands. Journal of Historical Geography, 40, 24-35.
  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.