One example of a different imagining of the organization of space is given in an appendix to David Harvey's book Spaces of Hope (2000) in which he describes a utopian future he calls 'Edilia'. In this future people do not live in families but in 'hearths', that is groups of 20-30 adults and children, ten or so of which group together to form 'neighbourhoods'. Approximately 20 neighbourhoods combine together to form an 'edilia' (of about 60,000 people). About 20 to 50 edilias come together to form the largest contiguous political unit, called a 'regiona' (of at most three million people). This is also a bioregion that aims to be as self-sufficient as possible for its inhabitants. This spatialized form of organization may not seem to be very different from what already exists in a number of places and at a number of scales but Harvey radically departs from current forms of organization in that regionas combine to form 'nationa', which are not spatially contiguous but combine regiona in temperate, tropical, sub-tropical and sub-arctic parts of the world, brought together for the purposes of trade and barter. Moreover, nationa are not permanent features of the geopolitical map. They are expected to periodically dissolve and reform.
cri de cœur that so many geographers appear to be sleeping, i.e., are indifferent to a world characterized by profound injustices and material inequalities. David Harvey (2000: 254), however, argues that our ability to create new geographies (and inevitably having to do so constrained by geographical conditions that are not of our own choosing) is hampered or enabled by three aspects of our intellectual engagements:
1 where we can see geography from;
2 how far we can see; and
Building on feminist concerns with 'situated knowledges' and going beyond the visibility of difference, Harvey highlights the necessity of recognizing alternative ways of thinking and dreaming about our futures, in ways that consciously desire difference.
Was this article helpful?