In addressing the question of what might be next in human geography I endeavour to enrich the debates between Anglo-American poststructuralist and continental European action-theoretical approaches by bringing`life' to the geographical subject. In contrast to established conceptualisations of the geographical self, I will introduce a conception of the self which mediates between the subject and the subjectified, between voluntarism and determinism, and between consciousness and corporeality. Through this reconceptualisation I do not pretend to provide final answers, but rather seek to initiate a new stream of thought.

If one compares different advanced systems of spatial planning, it is surprising that even similar systems show rather different results. This raises the question of what causes these differences. One obvious hypothesis is that in addition to the similarities between planning systems, a number of different 'soft' cultural factors also play a crucial role. Starting from this hypothesis and using an actor-centered approach the article suggests the use of frame analysis as a suitable tool for investigating these 'soft' cultural aspects of spatial planning. The main objective of such an investigation is not to develop a prescriptive method for spatial planning itself, but rather to gain a social scientific understanding of the structure and the dynamics of the framing process, which could then serve as an inspirational basis for developing diverse practical schemes of spatial planning. It is argued that culture plays an important role in spatial planning and that the role of culture can be addressed with an actor-centered approach. The article gives a short overview of the development of different forms of frame-analysis in social sciences and policy research. The concluding section argues that an analysis of cultural frames in spatial planning is richer and carries more potential than other approaches, for example, the more traditional and usual actor analysis or discourse analysis.

Comparative research on gentrification is on the rise, especially since gentrification is no longer confined to historical, central neighbourhoods in First World countries, but also appeared in rural, new‐built areas and Second World countries. In this paper we present our comparative approach to investigate gentrification processes in four European cities (Arnhem, Istanbul, Vienna, Zurich), which differs from previous studies in its use of assemblage theory as research framework. The multi‐layered framework discerns three levels: ‘metrics’, ‘interpretations’, and ‘practices’. We argue that many comparative studies mainly focus on metrics, while researching interpretations and practices instead – and how these three levels influence each other through processes of actualisation and counteractualisation – would enhance our knowledge on gentrification. In doing so, we aim to provide a precise account of the nested relations of different layers of empirical reality and thus respond to various calls in the debate to intensively examine ‘geographies of gentrification’.

No abstract

In this introductory contribution to this special issue of "TESG", we want to question the usual way of conceptualising places and borders in the debate about transnationalism. We argue, that in studies of transnationalism, on the one hand the idea of nation-states as spatial containers is overcome, but on the other hand also reproduces the same spatial containers. Instead we suggest the use of the term 'trans-world' to avoid any connotation suggesting spatial containers. In this framework, places and borders are instead seen as multi-dimensional and dynamic concepts which can be applied to almost any kind of relationships transgressing and reconfiguring borders and places at all scales. The papers which follow this introduction show how in particular situations and contexts, these transgressing and reconfiguring activities can be conceptualised in very different ways. Copyright (c) 2009 by the Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG.

With his three-volume magnum opus on spheres, Peter Sloterdijk introduces a critical philosophical and cultural view of the spatiality of current society. His spatial metaphors serve as an intriguing source for inspiration for geographers. He describes the topological conditions of society by means of three different forms of spherical conditions of life: bubbles, globes, and foams. To understand, assess, and critique our current society we, according to Sloterdijk, need to replace the arrogant and cynical academic view of Plato and his followers with the more serene composure of the kinetic view of Diogenes. In this contribution, on the one hand we shall elaborate the spatial metaphor Sloterdijk uses. On the other hand we want to scrutinise Sloterdijk's ideas by drawing some parallels between his ideas and those of other philosophical anthropological thinkers. Finally, we very briefly want to point to a suitable conceptual framework for empirically investigating the spherology of human being in the world.

No abstract

Informality originated in the field of urban planning studies related to the global South. As this particular debate is aimed at making a contribution to planning theory in general, the concept has gradually traveled beyond the global South. This article explores how informality can be used to analyze community-led planning practices in Western countries, by reflecting on its usability in a country that has a strongly formalized planning context, namely, the Netherlands. By expanding what is currently described as spatial planning, informality makes planning theories and practices more inclusive in cases where unregulated planning activities are performed by nongovernmental actors.