Although highly illustrative of the new spatial order of the network society, a strict separation between the space of places and space of flows is highly problematic and utterly unsuited to gaining an understanding of the possibilities of social practice through contemporary digital technology. In addition, Castells’ somewhat soft techno-deterministic account does not fully acknowledge the asymmetric social struggles involved in the articulation of socio-technical systems, such as everyday life
108
in the space of flows. Nevertheless, as Felix Stadler (2006) argues, Castell’s theory of a network society develops a highly flexible framework that may be adapted to reflect new empirical findings. At the light of new social configurations of communication systems, Manuel Castells revisited his own theory pointing out that “while the space of flows has been produced by and around dominant activities and social groups, it can be penetrated by resistance, and diversified in its meaning” (Castells, 1999, p.297). While the new system operates globally, it also operates at a local scale. The
grassrooting challenges the abstraction of the space of flows, making it a plural and diversified space. Hence “the geography of the new history will not be made of the separation between places and flows, but out of the interface between places and flows and between cultures and social interests, both in the space of flows and in the space of places” (Castells, 1999, p.294). Stadler accurately notes that, apart from this necessary correction, Castells’ theory of a network society is in force. Actually,
Castells’ actualization “strengthens the hypothesis that the space of flows is the space of power, including, today, counter-power” (Stadler, 2006, p.152). The ability to affect the production of space in a network society is predicated upon building linkages that allow people to find ways to enact the space of flows without leaving the space of places, or humanize the space of flows, as Echeverría would say. Stadler argues that such linkages are possible due to transformations in some aspects of the social, technical and spatial foundation of the space of flows; leading to two important consequences. First, that not only dominant social processes7 are integrated in flow, but increasingly are a broad range of social activities that previously were mainly organized around places s. Second, the space of flows is used on behalf of locally
7 The dominant activities organized around the space of flows are (1) financial flows, (2) management of
major corporations in services and manufacturing, (3) ancillary networks of firms for major corporations, and (4) media, entertainment, professional sports, science and technology, institutionalized religion, military power, and global criminal economy (Castells, 2010, p.296).
109
rooted projects (Stadler, 2006, p.151). Thus, Castells accounts not only for local governments as a bridge between the space of places and the space of flows. He recognizes, without entering into great detail, new affordances and means of connectivity between places and flows. In this regard, solely relying on the leadership of appropriately qualified institutions would not suffice to ensure digital public spaces. As McQuire puts it, “[e]xplorations by contemporary artists and activists using new media in public space can yet play a critical role” (2008, p. 205).
Whereas Castells’ initial thesis was predicated on people’s inability – as physical beings – to live and act in a dimension other than physical space, he later accounts for personal interaction as a means of inhabiting the space of flows8, therefore
transforming it (Castells, 1999). In Lefebvrian terms – each society produces its own social space – in a network society social space is produced at the “interface between electronic communication and physical interaction, by the combination of networks and places” (Castells 2004, p.445).
This revision calls for a critical approach to the social configuration of the interfaces that connect places and flows. In this context, the concept digital public space emphasizes myriad possible characterizations at the interface of places and flows, at the integration of everyday lived practice and digital archives. At the core of the digital public space project is the need to rethink the role of local governments to adopt the conditions that allow a dialogic relation between electronic flows and people’s experiences of place. As it has been noted, the configuration of interfaces to
8 Castells refers to five dimensions of social meaning in the space of flows, with emphasis in electronic
spaces, but in interaction with the space of places. First, personal interaction. Second is horizontal communication establishing systems that are alternative to the media. Third is the creation of networks of solidarity and cooperation. Fourth, social movements organized through electronic spaces. Fifth, previously stated as a connection between place and flows through local governments, linkages between people and institutions in an interactive process (Castells, 1999, p.298-299)
110
the space of flows does not solely rely upon nodes and aa managerial elite, but also upon everyday practices, for interfaces between flows and places operate at different scales, complexities, and relations.
In order to explore the grassrooting of the space of flows, characterizations of digital public space that allow using digital technologies for public action and meaningful citizen participation in tune with the Lefebvrian right to the city will be considered. Prior to exploring the urbanization of the Web, this chapter briefly revisits the social configuration of the Web, and the tension between hierarchies and networks. The chapter then explores the process of urbanization of the Web as a moment of transition from cyberspace ideals to the development of digital cities. which offer a rather literal example of the relocation of physical spaces in the Web. Of particular interest is the case of Amsterdam Digital City, as a grassroot initiative concerning the space of flows.