ON THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF URBAN SPACE 65 started to talk in terms of space, that meant one was hostile to time. It meant, as the fools say, that one 'denied history'. . . . They didn't understand that [these spatial termsl meant that throwing into relief of processes needless to say of power.1 Where space was considered, it was in terms of physical attributes, such as boundaries, frontiers, scale nation-states, regions, towns, rural areas. Social theory accordingly proceeded as if events took place on 'the head of a pin', and space and spatial analysis had been left to geographers. Within geography two traditions predominated, one was the materialist tradition set by Newton. Newton believed that space is a physical and an empirical entity, which is absolute and infinite. It is a boundless receptacle which may or may not be filled with objects. This space is detached from experiences and objects. For Newton, 'Space composed of points and a time composed of instances existed independently of the bodies and events that occupied them12 Space, to Newton, was fixed, isotropic and three dimensional. This notion of space still continues to guide much work in geography. The other tradition was the idealist one set by a professor of geography, Emmanuel Kant. To Kant space is a mental construct; an a priori of knowledge; a quality of mind which makes knowledge possible. Human beings structure their experiences by projecting spatiality and temporality upon the world. Thus, though space is empirically real, it can be comprehended only through thought. Thus the mainstream tendency has been to think of pace either as pro-given or as a mental construct. This precluded the notion that space is socially produced, or that it is the result of human actions. Sharp criticism of the above delineated perspectives,3 has generated fresh insights into the dialectical nature of space. Space is now, considered to be, not only the material context for human activity, but as also the product of human activity, and which in turn, fashions activity. Thus space, it can be argued, is socially produced and socially mediated.4 It, at any given time is the product of social processes, and historically created space moulds and influences these processes. Everyday lives of individuals are thus shaped by their relationship to their spaces.5 The assertion of space in social theory thus provides, a much needed theoretical and political context for any discussion on social practices. As the distinguished literary critic Fredric Jameson argues, 'a model of political culture appropriate to our own situation will necessarily have to raise spatial issues as its fundamental organising concern'.6 Simply put, these insights allow us to understand that since space is a social construct, human beings etch spaces with their own version of power relations. Spatial forms, in effect, symbolize the power arrangements of a society. For instance, if as Marx wrote, the spatial