Abstract

In this thesis I argue that space matters for political theory. We can understand this simple phrase in two ways. First, it means that any thorough explication of how power operates must recognize space as an integral part of subject production. Second, it indicates that the effects of power are literally made material in the built environment as economic, cultural, and political resources are consolidated and represented through spatio-symbolic forms. By grounding our studies of power in specific communities, we can better describe the places in which power inheres, the mechanisms by which it attaches itself to certain groups or classes, and the means by which it is circulated. ;In Chapter Two, I develop a theoretical framework that will underpin my discussion of Washington. I argue that Foucault's conceptualization of power offers us a rich account of how discursive and material spaces exist in mutually constitutive relation to one another. However, while Foucault's work provides important insights into the joint production of subjects and spaces, it neglects powerful symbolic aspects of the built environment. Our analysis cannot be limited only to the disciplinary institutions and practices that Foucault's work foregrounds, but also must engage the extra-disciplinary spaces that constitute the larger topography of urban life. For this reason, I argue, Foucault's ideas need to be supplemented with critical theoretical work that recognizes these other forms of spatial practice. ;I then examine the connections between spaces, subjects, and power as they have been articulated in the discourses of urban planning in Washington, D.C. and subsequently built into the urban landscape. In Chapters Three and Four, I compare turn of the century Washington with urban planning discourse at mid-century. Finally, in Chapter Five, I revisit my initial theoretical assumptions and ask how these might be augmented in my future work. I argue that political theory must attend to alternative accounts of space and subjectivity by showing how subjects resist the discursive and material constraints imposed on them both by urban planning discourses and by urban planning practices