The resulting theoretical framework and its gaps.

Table 2: Mark Bonta’s theoretical framework (Bonta, 2001; Bonta and Protevi, 2004). Deleuzian concepts Bonta’s concepts

Assemblage:

A combination of human and non-human entities operating in their own way as part of the assemblage.

Complex space:

A complex space is formed by a combination of assemblages.

Smooth and striated:

Each entity striates and smooths a given space to meet its unique operational demands.

Complex space:

A complex space can only exist when a given space is not dominated by any one set of striations defined by one or several assemblages.

Becomings:

Becomings are the potentials for an entity to operate in certain ways.

Multiplicity

A multiplicity is the combination of all potentials in all the entities in an assemblage. It provides the conditions for developing an assemblage.

Referential model:

The referential model is used to determine which potentials will and will not be operationalised.

68 The left-hand-side column lists five of Deleuze’s key, ontological concepts and the way Bonta interprets these concepts to make them useful to his study. Running from top to bottom of the column, these concepts are used to explain the combination of entities operating in Bonta’s field of study (assemblages), how they organise space (striations and smoothness), how they are able to operate in this way (becomings), where these potentials come from (multiplicity) and one way in which this process is directed in policy assemblages (referential models). This left-hand column presents a very similar picture to the one outlined in Chapter 2, and my own attempt to explain these ontological concepts using examples from the design process.

The second column to the right-hand-side identifies the concept that Bonta creates to meet the specific demands of his project. As the table suggests, Bonta’s develops the concepts of the ‘assemblage’ and ‘striated and smooth space’ to form the concept of ‘complex space’.

This concept of ‘complex space’ is a strong addition to the concepts offered in Deleuze’s seminal texts. However, it also leads me onto, what I believe to be, the principle gap in Bonta’s theoretical framework. According to Bonta, not all spaces can be considered as complex spaces. For Bonta, spaces cannot be considered complex if one or several assemblages dominate land-use. These dominant assemblages, he argues, have direct, material effects on other assemblages. They determine how other assemblages operate, how they add or remove entities and how they organise space. Rather than explaining these relations, Bonta holds that Deleuze’s theoretical framework provides us with the tools we need to problematise the dominant position held by such assemblages (Bonta and Protevi, 2004).

This begs the question, how does this relate to other studies outside of Olancho? For Bonta and Protevi complex spaces can be found in developing rather than developed countries where the State assemblage has not assumed a dominant role over other assemblages (Bonta and Protevi, 2004). However, for me, this final distinction is too simple. Do complex spaces not exist in Western, developed countries? If we sit at any urban square in the UK, can we not see a number of entangled assemblages operating in the area? After all, the entities operating in these areas are not all part of a State assemblage. Drug sellers, homeless people, stray cats, pigeons, children playing with bottle tops etc also operate within other assemblages not defined by a State assemblage.

69 And each of these assemblages smooth and striate space to meet their own, unique demands.

Additionally, I question whether ‘the State’ can be understood as a single, monolithic assemblage. Like any other large assemblage, it too is formed from other assemblages that operate in different ways and seek to striate and smooth physical, as well as non- physical (such as policy), space to meet these unique demands. Thinking back to Chapter 2, there is no reason to assume that the State assemblage should be governed by ‘relations of interiority’, whilst all other assemblages are governed by ‘relations of exteriority’. It also assumes that the State assemblage implements their goals with clear and effective force, and no discretion on the part of their subjects. With this in mind, it seems inappropriate to talk about a State assemblage as a unified body operating and striating space in a coherent way (Hillier and Abrahams, 2013).

I would like to suggest, therefore, that complex spaces are found in many different areas in many countries around the world. The design process I discussed in Chapter 2, could thus be described as a developing assemblage (the building assemblage) operating within a complex space. If we start with the assumption that all spaces are complex, then we are able to make fuller use of the ideas presented in Bonta’s study and his later work with Protevi .We might then ask: What assemblages operate in the area? How do they entangle and affect each other through this entanglement? Which entities are introduced by other entities operating in an assemblage in complex space, and which are introduced as ‘referential models’ from other contexts? Thinking back to Chapter 1 and 2, modelled concepts would be a good example of this second type of entity. Do these models seek to change the way other assemblages are created and how they operate? And if so, what are the effects on these assemblages operating in a complex space?

By adapting the concept of ‘complex spaces’ we can start to see how these kinds of questions might guide analytical methods in related disciplines such as spatial planning. This Deleuze-inspired understanding of complex space and its use alongside other Deleuzian concepts could be used to critique and draw lessons from studies of ‘complex spaces’ in ANT (Callon and Law, 2004). This could include an engagement with Law’s proposals for ‘baroque’ and ‘romantic’ forms of complex space (Law, 2004) or/and Thrift’s discussion on ‘encountering’ (Thrift, 2004)

70 Similar opportunities might exist in spatial planning literature more specifically. The concept of ‘relational space’, for example, has been developed by a number of influential planning theorists (Graham and Healey, 1999; Healey, 2006), as has its link to Deleuze’s conception of space (Massey, 1999; Murdoch, 2006; Malpas, 2012; Hillier, 2007; Monno, 2012). Thus, it seems that an expanded understanding of Bonta’s ‘complex space’ could help inform, revise and direct these theoretical developments in geography and planning. This expanded understanding of ‘complex space’ will be included in my own theoretical framework developed in Chapter 7.