Interdependent Relationship between Power and Space: Analytical Essay

This essay aims to determine the relationship between power and space by first focusing on the complex definitions associated with both terms respectively. This piece will then help explain how within any given space lies a power or range of rules regarding power, and how in order to ensure that any notion of power is effective, an allocated space is essential. Thus, what follows will confirm that an interdependent relationship exists between the two variables as shown by power being present in most spaces and power controlling different spaces.

Space can be found in bounded dimensions of height, depth, and width within which things exist and move (American Heritage Dictionary, 2016). In terms of communities, space is an expanse of a surface where there is sufficient freedom to develop or explore one’s individuality, interests, and needs. Power can be explained by the capacity to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of proceedings (Luthans, 2015). Individuals highly positioned on the hierarchical ladder of society, for example, would identify as the ‘powerful’, while those of lower class would be deemed as ‘powerless’. To a certain degree and through their contribution to a given society, particular people are offered a title of authority or are the attainers of power such as judges, police officers or teachers. These types of authoritative figures can help us observe the ways power interacts with practical space.

We see power present in spaces of everyday life. School is an establishment that offers students the illusion of free will and choice to select subjects and degrees. Here, we see institutions which provide people with the chance to explore needs, interests and individuality. This however is known as manipulative power. While these students believe they are chasing after what they desire, the objective of educating citizens is insincere and hidden by the powerful figures of society (de Certeau, 1984). The underlying reason is so they are better equipped with the skills required to participate in productive employment, generate a greater income and in turn, be productive members of society to achieve success economically. Additionally, such spaces have certain rules to follow such as uniform, arrival time and homework. Lecturers, tutors, primary school teachers and principals all reign powerful in the face of their students. The same applies in the workforce where managers, supervisors and bosses place higher on the corporate ladder compared to lower situated employees. These examples illustrate how power is either present through authoritative figures or rules and regulations relevant to their respective spaces. Pierre Rabhi (2011), an ecologist, suggests that boxes can be used as a metaphor for structures in life that we occupy. He states that we are lodged into ‘boxes’ our entire lives which is further explored in Nate Macanian’s “Box Theory of life” (2016). Each physical space one inhabits can be perceived as a box; some spaces are even enclosed by four right angles exactly like a box. From kindergarten buildings, to university institutions, to train carriages, we are housed in containers. When we enter the workforce, each company can be seen as a small or large box. We use a box (car, bus or train) to get from one box (such as the home) to the next box (the club or work or restaurant). Each of these spaces has a set of rules regarding power. For example, dress codes exist within certain workforces and schools which, when disobeyed, can lead to consequences such as being sent home by the principal or boss. Similarly, occupying the box of a car requires a license and the following of numerous road laws which, if broken, can result in penalties, fines or loss of license. Power is therefore present in all sorts of spaces in different forms, whether it be an authoritative figure or laws, rules and regulations to abide by, thus showing the interrelationship between both space and power.

An obvious relationship between power and space, is that power controls space. Countries, cities, states and all mapped areas are under the influence of a power, whether it be economic, political or military. Everything is designed to benefit society. Thus, those who understand power also understand the echo of the law, control, regulation, supremacy and authority. Ownership of different spaces by mark of flag, boarders and the mapping of regions, has enabled our race to seize power and reign over these very spaces (Lefebvre, 1991). The conquest of what we decide belongs to us (through purchasing our own land or becoming the principal of a school) and new acquisition of such spaces, gives us power and the ability within reach of our possessed space, where we are freed to do whatever we like (within reason). Attaining certain spaces or even simply just existing in these spaces is referred to by Michel de Certeau (1984) as possession. A subject can “possess” an object. In the case of everyday life, the people who own a house, go to school or work, obey the laws of society and participate, are all subjects possessing the object of space. Power lies with our respective governors, presidents, teachers or even parents. These powerful figures however can lose their power. For example, if a teacher or parent were to lose control, behave like a tyrant or treat a child as an equal by beating, screaming and/or arguing with them, they would lose the respect of the child and in turn, lose their authority and power (Arendt, 1970). For one to hold power, someone else must allow them to do so. Each area and space are subject to the transformation of each individual to just another number or barcode. This is done for better “managing, differentiating, classifying and hierarchizing” of people (de Certeau, 1984), with the expectation of being able to govern over them. A person operating in their everyday life, walking, wandering, window shopping, thinks of themselves as being free. These people however are probably unaware of the powerholders who conceive such spaces to keep citizens in order and under control in a society of distraction (Lefebvre, 1991). We are like puppets unknown to who controls our strings, blinded to who makes the rules. The human race has taken power over land, sea and even outer space and it is power that controls such space. The power possessors of each space contribute to the maintenance of order in society. Without this power it is possible to consider mayhem and disorder in spaces, from classrooms to the wider community and judicial system. Space is therefore dependant on power to achieve and maintain order, proving that power is what controls space.

Power also controls the entities inhabiting different spaces. Michel Foucault (1991) explores how the surveillance state is what closes the boundaries for freedom of action and human development. Privacy and intimacy have become an illusion. His reference to a plague town from the 17th century describes the “the closing of the town and its outlying districts, a prohibition to leave the town on pain of death, and division of the town into district quarters, each governed by an intendant”. This evokes a sense of fear mong readers who understand a space that is compartmentalised and monitored. Although we may not realise it, Australia today is very much reminiscent of this. Our country is sectioned off into different states, and within these states exist the sectorial boundaries referred to as cities and within cities like Melbourne exist separate suburbs. To travel out of Australia requires a passport and extreme processes of airport security upon departure and arrival at destination. Foucault described a “segmented, immobile, frozen space” where if an individual moved, they did so “at risk of their life, contagion or punishment”. If anyone dared to disobey the rules and codes of conduct in the plague town mentioned from the 17th century, they were punished. Here in Australia, we too have our own laws, rules and regulations to abide by in all spaces such as airports, restaurants, schools etc. There is always a superior power, it exists but undoubtedly rests hidden. We can determine that for every given space, there must be a controlling figure; An automated power; Consistently being revised and improved for the greater good of society. This type of surveillance is based on a system of permanent regulation which is apparent in not only Foucault’s 17th century plague town, but also Australia today.

The infamous Panopticon, a building designed to view and monitor others without being seen, helps further explore this concept. This structure allows the authorities to have a constant visual of prisoners with their deterrence established by the assumption of guilt of committing any excessive crime against the law. The inmate “is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never the subject of communication” (Foucault, 1991). Today, our “docile bodies” live in what is considered a “self-surveilling” society where we constantly feel watched. Our bodies may be subjected, used, transformed and improved in the face of a society which uses self-surveillance to influence our decisions and actions (Foucault, 1991). We participate in education, employment, follow the speed limit, pay our taxes because deviance would result in punishment. Here we understand the paradox of choice: an abundance of choices gives confusion and lack of them results in order. That is why today, decisions of dress in certain environments, limitations of speed on certain roads and other decisions are made for us, to remove confusion and establish order. The panopticon induces within the inmate a “state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power”. Citizens today are either aware or unaware of the deprivation of liberty and control of space by power present in everyday life. Power controls the inhabitants of space. While we may not visually be able to see the figure that holds the power in society, we are still expected to obey the rules and laws, and out of fear of constantly being watched and punished for defiance, we do submit to them. Here we see how power controls the entities inhabiting space. Whether we can or cannot see the physical source of power, its presence is still known and powerful enough to control the citizens of society participating in different spaces.

This piece discusses the relationship between space and power. It highlights that power exists in spaces and sometimes the people inhabiting those spaces are unaware of the power. How power controls not only spaces, but also the people existing in spaces can be explained by surveillance and the panopticon which are used as a dissuasive tool by the powerful figures in societies to help ensure order. The primary relationship between the two is that power without space is powerless and a space without power is nothing.