‘Space’ is a term that has been variously understood throughout history by physicists, mathematicians, and social scientists. It has been seen as a given, an objective and concrete entity. It has also been understood as a socially constructed phenomenon, subjectively experienced. After describing the Western conceptions, which mostly had a universal approach towards space and experience, this essay will show the departure taken by Gopal Guru, where he sees the space and experience of India, which can only be understood by looking at the particular. Through his interrogation, Guru privileges experience as an initial precondition for thought formation. By doing so, Guru opens a fresh entry point to understanding the space and experience of the Indian lower castes.

Knowing space

The philosophical discussions of space started getting shaped ever since the era of the Greeks. Euclid introduced the idea of representing a three-dimensional physical space using geometrical tools (See McGonigle, 1970). Newton, by following this idea of Euclidean geometry, opined that space is absolute, real, and independent from any other factors (Agnew, 2005). Absolute space for Newton is an empty void or container that can be filled or can be measured. All the activities happen in this absolute space. It was Leibniz who departed from this view of space. He considered space as relational which is not independent of objects and events. Space, for Leibniz, involves a coexistence and relation between objects and their activities (Agnew, 2005). Immanuel Kant came up with an elaborative subjective and human-centred idea of space. He did not dismiss Newton’s objective space. He agreed that there is objective space. However, he suggested that space is subjective too- for space is experienced differently (Holmes, 1955 & Timmons, 1979). This argument proposed by Kant on space which emphasizes human subjectivity laid the foundations for social science research oriented towards space and experience.

Since the formation of the Marxist idea that human history is essentially a history of social production relations (Harris, 1948). However, these social relations were conceptualized historically with reference to time. It was Henri Lefebvre who popularized the importance of space in social production relations. Lefebvre argued that space is socially produced by the capitalist power structure. His conceptualization of space involved the interactions between perceived space (space understood through spatial practices), conceived space (space built by architects and urban planners) and lived space (the experienced or imagined space) (See Lefebvre, 1991). As mentioned above, the social space here is produced by the capitalist structure where human labour is alienated. Lefebvre also emphasizes embodied spatial practices, which give importance to the human body in the production of space. Many theorists used his framework to understand the relationship between space, social action, and social formations (See Low, 2017).

Michel Foucault departs from the conception of space by Lefebvre and considers space as something produced by the power structure or the nation-state to govern its subjects. Foucault views architecture, cities, schools, institutions, etc., are spaces formulated by the power structure. He illustrates this idea by using Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, an institution designed in such a way that the central tower can see and monitor people in the institution.  Foucault argues that this form of social control exists everywhere, and it is so internalized that people don’t even know that they are being ‘disciplined,’ and this disciplining happens in the space created by the state (Foucault, 1977).

Pierre Bourdieu investigated the spatialization of everyday life and how the socio-spatial order is translated to experience and practice. His Kabyle/ the Berber house becomes the setting for the integration of body space and cosmic space (Bourdieu, 1970). Through the living experience in the spatial symbolism of home, the social structure gets embodied and naturalized. Michel De Certeau proposed that the ‘common’ people reappropriate the space which is under governmental control. Through everyday life practices like walking, narrating, and remembering the ‘weak’ indirectly contest against the spatial domination by the disciplinary state and hence reappropriate the space through their lived experiences (De Certeau, 2011).

Gopal Guru and space in India

In his essay ‘Experience, space and Justice,’ Guru highlights the importance of making experiences the precondition for doing theory. “Experience, which is subjectively realized but objectively produced through the logic of space, finds its theoretical representation mediated by experiential space” (Guru, 2017, p.72). In other words, what he is arguing is that space acts as the container where experience is produced. Here, Guru is drawing from the idea of Lefebvre which says that space is not an empty container but a socially produced phenomenon. Guru uses the term ‘tormenter’ for whom the space act as a necessary precondition for creating experiences that can morally paralyse the victim (Guru, 2017, p.73). However, Guru argues that the tormenter cannot entirely shape the experience of the victim even though they can create a space for it. The victim constantly seeks to reconfigure the space to put an end to the termination; they are motivated to create an egalitarian space. This is only possible through self-discovery, cultural and intellectual mobilization.

To elaborate on the importance of experience, Guru looks at twentieth-century India and sees how differently Gandhi and Ambedkar tried to transform society, and how their ideas varied based on their experience. Both had the opinion that spaces are hostile. Gandhi wanted to rectify the existing space, while Ambedkar’s project was to radically subvert these spaces. Gandhi wanted to invoke the moral category of ‘seva’ (self-less duty), trusteeship, care, etc. to change the social dynamics but Ambedkar wanted to invoke self-respect, social justice, and egalitarianism because he felt that Gandhi’s moral categories required validity from the political practice of the people which makes justice as something granted by the hierarchy (Guru, 2017, p.88). The change in the methods to restructure the society seen in Gandhi and Ambedkar is because of their varied experiences about untouchability, argues Guru. For Gandhi, the caste experience is the experience of others and hence the experiences of the untouchables become a mere object of inquiry for him. However, Ambedkar and the other untouchables are born into the experience that they are ontologically related to it. This is the reason why Gandhi wanted to work with the tormentors, and Ambedkar wants to annihilate them.

By showing the importance of laying down the experience as an initial presupposition, Guru claims that he is trying to create a framework to produce thoughts that can look into specific realities which are very particular. He wanted to make experiences a basic condition for knowledge formation. What Guru has contributed through his essay is an entry point for researchers who wants to document the experience of people in a caste-divided India.

References:

Agnew, J. (2005). Space: Place In Paul J. Cloke & R. J. Johnston (eds.), Spaces of Geographical

Thought: Deconstructing Human Geography’s Binaries. Sage Publications. pp. 81-96.

Bourdieu, P. (1970). The Berber House or the World Reversed. Social Science Information, 9(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847000900213

De Certeau M. (2011). The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press.

Foucault M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1st American). Pantheon Books.

Guru G. & Sarukkai S. (2017). The Cracked Mirror: An Indian Debate on Experience and Theory. Oxford University Press.

Harris, A. L. (1948). The Social Philosophy of Karl Marx. Ethics. 58(3): 1-42.  

Holmes, E. C. (1955). The Kantian Views on Space and Time Reevaluated. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 16(2), 240-244.  

Lefebvre H. Nicholson-Smith D. & Harvey D. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell Publishing.

Low S. M. (2017). Spatializing Culture: The Ethnography of Space and Place. Routledge.

McGonigle, T. G. (1970). Euclidean Space: A Lasting Philosophical Obsession. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 21(2): 185-191.  

Timmons, M.C., (1979). Kant’s Subjectivist Theory of Space. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/325.

***

E P Sarfras is a Master’s student at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Gandhinagar. Currently, he is working on the everyday social lives and experiences of young Muslims in Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.