IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02312361.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Of counter spaces of provisioning : Reframing the sidewalk as a parasite heterotopia

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique Roux

    (EM - EMLyon Business School)

  • Valérie Guillard
  • Vivien Blanchet

Abstract

This article considers the concept of heterotopia in the context of public space. Based on the observations and interviews with 19 disposers and/or gleaners operating on bulky item collection days, it shows that the sidewalk is (1) a liminal space for unwanted objects that are in transition between disposal and destruction or reappropriation; (2) a regularly practiced space, the meaning of which is redefined by disposers (for depositing) and gleaners (for provisioning); (3) a place of illusion that mirrors the profusion of goods produced by the linear economy; and (4) a space of compensation for the pitfalls of the consumer society. These findings provide a theoretical basis for the new concept of parasite heterotopia, a term that refers to a space that is appropriated by a tactical use of a regulated place, which both reflects and contests a dominant ordering on its own territory. The article adds to previous literature on heterotopias and sustainability by questioning how this "time–space" is involved in the dialectics of capitalism and criticism.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Roux & Valérie Guillard & Vivien Blanchet, 2018. "Of counter spaces of provisioning : Reframing the sidewalk as a parasite heterotopia," Post-Print hal-02312361, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02312361
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jack Coffin & Andreas Chatzidakis, 2021. "The Möbius strip of market spatiality: mobilizing transdisciplinary dialogues between CCT and the marketing mainstream," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 11(1), pages 40-59, June.
    2. Torik Holmes & Josi Fernandes & Teea Palo, 2021. "‘Spatio-market practices’: conceptualising the always spatial dimensions of market making practices," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 11(3), pages 316-335, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02312361. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.