Cited by 1,252Spatial and Cultural StudiesHistorical Geography and Geographical ThoughtUrban Planning and Governance

Theorizing Sociospatial Relations

Jessop, Bob, Brenner, Neil, Jones, Martin·2008·Environment and Planning D: Society and Space

Abstract

This essay seeks to reframe recent debates on sociospatial theory through the introduction of an approach that can grasp the inherently polymorphic, multidimensional character of sociospatial relations. As previous advocates of a scalar turn, we now question the privileging, in any form, of a single dimension of sociospatial processes, scalar or otherwise. We consider several recent sophisticated ‘turns’ within critical social science; explore their methodological limitations; and highlight several important strands of sociospatial theory that seek to transcend the latter. On this basis, we argue for a more systematic recognition of polymorphy—the organization of sociospatial relations in multiple forms—within sociospatial theory. Specifically, we suggest that territories (T), places (P), scales (S), and networks (N) must be viewed as mutually constitutive and relationally intertwined dimensions of sociospatial relations. We present this proposition as an extension of recent contributions to the spatialization of the strategic-relational approach (SRA), and we explore some of its methodological implications. We conclude by briefly illustrating the applicability of the ‘TPSN framework’ to several realms of inquiry into sociospatial processes under contemporary capitalism.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1068/d9107

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Geopolitical rivalry in CWII is geared towards control over the integration of non-linear, not-necessarily-hierarchical nodes in topological networks that are not overtly territorial.

    “In conceptual terms, key principles of network structure include interconnectivity and interdependence (Jessop, Brenner, and Jones 2008), so geopolitical rivalry in CWII is geared towards control over the integration of non-linear, not-necessarilyhierarchical nodes in topological networks that are not overtly territorial (i.e., these networks have material components, but they transcend discrete”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M.
Affiliations
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • New York University (US)
  • Aberystwyth University (GB)
Venue
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space
Published
2008-01-01
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
389-401
ISSN
  • 0263-7758 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-3433
OpenAlex
W136386487
Cited by
1,252
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 102 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 80 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 60 · 2012: 65
FWCI
306.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environment and Planning D Society and Space (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Spatial and Cultural Studies
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Historical Geography and Geographical Thought
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
Keywords
territoriality, place, scale, networks, strategic-relational approach, spatialization, contemporary capitalism, critical social science

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review