Erratum
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663909355235 |
| Date | 01 December 2009 |
| Published date | 01 December 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
‘Critical Legal Studies and the Politics of Space’ by Chris Butler (Social &
Legal Studies 18(3): 313–332, DOI: 10.1177/0964663909339084). Owing to
errors made at SAGE, the last paragraph on p. 324 (beginning ‘I agree . . .’)
of this article, and the Conclusion on p. 327 were wrongly printed. The
versions printed below are the correct versions. SAGE apologizes to Chris
Butler and to the readers of Social & Legal Studies for these errors.
ERRATUM
The last paragraph on p. 324 which begins with ‘I agree . . .’ ought to appear
as follows:
Perhaps ironically, this criticism is not the first time the ‘abstract’ qualities
of Lefebvre’s writing have been noted. Indeed the complex and circuitous
manner in which The Production of Space is structured has led some commen-
tators to question its value as a piece of social theory (Molotch, 1993: 893;
Sayer 1993; Unwin, 2000: 19–20). While it is true that the density of Lefebvre’s
style can at times obscure his message, it is not the case that his theory of
space can be easily subsumed within the protocols of orthodox Marxist urban
analysis. On the contrary, the attraction of his work is largely due to its anti-
essentialist and non-reductionist orientation, which reveals the inherent
complexity of space (Merrifield, 1995: 299). Consequently, scholarship on
urban governance which is informed by Lefebvre’s theoretical approach is
capable of simultaneously conceptualising law as a tool of the state in its
strategies of spatial production, and as a politically contested body of spatial
representations. Elsewhere I have deployed Lefebvre’s thinking in analysing
the orthodox tools of land-use planning by demonstrating that zoning is
both a codification of dominant representations of space, and a technical
mechanism for reproducing that dominance, by inscribing them in physical
uses of land (Butler, 2005). Dividing space into zones, imposing homogen-
eity within them and hierarchically organising these fragments of space has
proved a crucial vehicle for the reproduction of abstract space. The more
recent emergence in Australia of neoliberal regimes of urban governance has
heightened these tendencies towards abstract space, by introducing market
mechanisms into the development approval process (Butler, 2004).9
*****
The conclusion on p. 327 ought to appear as follows:
SOCIAL &LEGAL STUDIES © The Author(s), 2009
Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
0964 6639, Vol. 18(4), 435–436
DOI: 10.1177/0964663909355235
To continue reading
Request your trial