The difference between place and space has been wildly discussed in social science. As Micheal de Certeau emphasizes the performative and dynamic characteristics of space, he considered the narration created in spatial practice to play a significant role in human society. Narration and reflexivity of the agency are also crucial ideas in Anthony Gidden’s theory of “duality of structure”, which deems space as the outcomes and at the same time constraints of social agents. Taking Foucault’s theory of panopticon as a straightforward example, the introduction of such architecture is due to the requirement of social surveillance and under such pervasive surveillance the society becomes a “panopticon”. The self-narration of each agent in the “cell” might be about the reflection on discipline and delinquency in this visible space. Could the role of the security guard in the middle be explained by “focalizing enunciation”? I am not sure but, in this sense, space could be not only a practiced but a reflected place.
Reading Response: Micheal de Certeau
Starry, CHEN Quanchi 3035637395
You made a great recollection of both thinkers’ point of views, Foucault and Giddens, and use them to “read” one another. You can even enhance it more by dive deeper into Giddens’ notion of agency and structure in space and place. Who is (or are) the agencies of space and place? In terms of the duality, what is the dialogue between them? However, I would also suggest first introduce both Foucault’s conception of space and place as well as Giddens’ duality of structure at the very beginning to help readers who do not have the background information to follow your train of thoughts. Then, you could go even more specific and dig the panopticon to make it even more exciting!