and reach thousands of daily visitors
7 SEPTEMBER 2009
NO 1484
Space and place
Socio-spatial environments
Much of the Child and Youth Care literature has explored the: who, what,
how, and why of young people’s lives, but rarely has it addressed the
inter-dynamic relationship of where. While the concept of locality is
enveloped by the larger idea of ecological systems, it is necessary to
disentangle it and examine socio-spatial environments in their own
light. Socio-spatial environments consist of physical, social, cultural,
and imagined environments. Examining literature from both a Child and Youth Care perspective as well as that of children’s geographies, one
can begin to see the relevance of socio-spatial research to young
people. When combining research in different fields it is necessary to
present a clear understanding of terms and language.
Space and place
Children’s geographic research has increased in the last decade and has
drawn attention to the space and places of childhood and adolescence,
but what do we mean by “space” and “place?” These words are often used
interchangeably because space and place are complementary concepts.
Massey (1996) described space not as “something we live in, but rather
it is something which is socially created by the way in which we live
our lives; we create space through our interactions” (p. 36). Similarly,
place is a social construction, anchored in human experience and
interaction. Duncan (2000) defined place as “bounded settings in which
social relations and identity are constructed” (p. 582). Tuan (1977)
stated, “If we think of space as that which allows movement, then place
is pause” (p.6). Spaces can not be captured on a map, but places can.
Place is a site. Space however is how that site fits relative to other
sites. Space cannot be dissociated from place; they exist in an
interrelated dynamic comprising our environment.
From this differentiation of space and place, we can understand place as public domain, as a social setting. Some people consider public landscapes such as city sidewalks, parks, and streetscapes to be the private domain where they live. This public/private dichotomy is an area of research that Child and Youth Care can extend from human geography to examining (a) how street-youth perceive their place in the world; and (b) how living in the public arena affects their health and sense of power. My concern is that it seems to me that Child and Youth Care research has focused on the actual social relations and interactions of young people and on their identity formation processes. Little attention has been paid to the ‘places’ in which these were occurring, and what impact the place may have on the outcome. Space and place are inextricably joined. In addition, both concepts are socially constructed and hold multiple meaning. A street-involved youth panhandling on a street corner and a business man waiting for his bus both occupy the same physical environment, yet neither occupy the same space. Can we have more power over space because we have more control over how we create personal sense of space, or can we have more control over the physical places we inhabit?
STEPHANIE GRIFFIN
Griffin, S. (2008). The
spatial environments of street-involved youth: Can the streets be a
therapeutic milieu? Relational Child and Youth Care Practice, 21,
4. pp.16-27.
REFERENCES
Duncan, L. (2000). Place. In R.J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt and M. Watts (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography (4th ed). Oxford: Blackwell.
Massey, D. (1996). The Spaces of Community. In N. Papastergiadis (Ed.), Mixed belongings and unspecified destinations. London, England: Institute of International Visual Arts.
Tuan, Y.F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective
of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
