Space, Knowledge, Power

Spaces may be encoded in particular ways that symbolize areas of exclusion where certain modes of thought work to keep disabled people in their place. Kitchin (1998), for instance adds that when disabled persons are ‘out-of-place’ members of society may perceive a threat to existing power relations. Spatialities of disability often include signs, symbols and codes that demarcate difference and (re)produce distinct

99

spatialities around binaries of ‘health’ and ‘healthy’ bodies (see Imrie, 2001). Spaces permit and encourage particular practices and discourage others, they structure thought and action and are perpetually being restructured. Spaces are not static containers of social actors they are fluid dynamic catalysts of social action that are both shaped and shaping in a dialectic relationship with social actors. Examining how individuals experience space is a way of examining practices of spatial domination. Questions of access to particular spaces emerge as salient as access to space implies access to particular forms of knowledge-power configurations.

Power-knowledge relations are mediated within and by educational spaces and also shape the thoughts and actions of social actors in such educational spaces. Crampton and Elden (2007) state: “Thinking about and organizing space is one of the pre-

occupations of power. If every strategy of power has a spatial dimension, power also has a practice of spatial domination that is appropriate to its strategy” (p.25). Thus, power- knowledge is intertwined with space – a view that is informed significantly by Foucault’s (1986; 1995; 2003) work, which I will discuss in greater depth later in this chapter. Thus power-knowledge relations are both inscribed in space and prescribed by organizations of space. Similarly Freund (2001) adds that spatial-temporal structures are important in shaping the social construction of disability. He argues that the social model of disability is inherently spatial as it speaks about exclusion and marginalization, movement and configurations, practices constituting spatial patterns, and socio-spatial boundaries. For disabled people spaces and settings may represent spatialities of demarcation and exclusion (Imrie, 2001; Sibley, 1995).

100

Spatial questions underpin educational processes and practices, yet according to Gulson and Symes (2007) space is under-examined and under-theorised in educational research. Educational sites, buildings and architecture provide the fabric of a disciplinary technology where people are unremittingly subject to inspection and surveillance,

normalization and classification (Gulson & Symes, 2007). Gulson and Symes (2007), in fact, draw from Foucault’s work to make explicit dividing practices that are central to understanding the politics of spatiality in educational settings where routines are

implemented to separate, regulate, and calibrate individuals (Gulson & Symes, 2007) as I have elaborated on in previous chapter with regards to the constitution of disabled and mad students in university contexts vis-a-vis specific knowledge-power relations, subjectification and disciplinary regimes.

According to Gulson and Symes (2007) education research has yet to take the epistemological spatial turn. Imrie (2001), for example, notes that: “A focus on disabled people necessarily draws attention to the body and the diverse ways in which it is entwined with socio-spatial practices” (p.233). Theorization of space may result in unearthing of spatial questions that underpin various educational processes and practices. For Gulson and Symes (2007): “The use of spatial theories appears to challenge the notion of what it is to research ‘education’; not only in terms of the object of study, but also in relation to theoretical and methodological possibilities and problems in the spatial turn” (p. 107). Thus, theories of space contribute in critically important ways to subtle and more sophisticated understandings of competing rationalities underlying educational socio-economic-cultural practices sustaining or (re)producing social inequality.

101

considerations to issues of access to particular spaces and resources. I aim to contribute new knowledge on how disabled students’ experience, negotiate, and employ socio- spatial practices in university settings.

Foucault (2003) conceives of space as the material crystallization of rules where people are arranged in particular ways, a phenomenon which I take up in greater detail with specific reference to his work in the following sections. In this sense, spaces may be organized in ways to partition individuals and break up collective dispositions, divide and distribute bodies to know where and how to locate individuals, and be able to assess, supervise and acquire knowledge of individuals within space. According to Imrie (2001) spaces may be structured in ways limiting access of disabled persons:

Barriers have connotations with physical space or obstructions such as walls, fences or other demarcations which prevent people having ease of access from one place to another. These may be purposeful structures which seek to define and defend territory…or architectural barriers…The notion of barriered spaces is neither obvious nor straightforward and can refer to a multiplicity of possibilities, including the perceptual and imaginary nature of space. Indeed, barriers are much more than physical artefacts. (p. 232)

Thus, spaces are dynamically bounded in partitioning ways to be used in certain complex ways bay certain social actors. As explicated in the previous chapter by drawing on Foucault (1995), spaces are architecturally designed and coded where places are

purposefully designed. Such analytic insights into spatiality has the potential to deepen an understanding of the material effects of knowledge-power relations in university settings in terms of their impact on disabled students.

102