There are also, probably in every culture, in every civilization, real places

Gosh, I sure hope so.

I shall call them, by way of contrast to utopias, heterotopias.

The enigma is solved. The heterotopia was defined long before we got to this point. Foucault reaffirms his antithesis and continues in his explanation of the heterotopia, giving examples and outlying principles. But in between the text, in the streographic space of writing, Foucault has already told us what we needed to know about heterotopias.

There's only one more thing left to do.

Thank you.

Because these places are absolutely different from all the sites that they reflect and speak about

Not only are heterotopias defined as the Other, but they are defined by their Otherness. They are negatives. Negatives of utopias, for not being unreal. Negatives of the real, for being outside all that is in the real space of Society.

Yet so much is possible for the heterotopia. An "effectively enacted" utopia, or at least "kind of," has so many possibilities for the imagination.

Imagine visiting the world in Plato's Republic. Now actually do it. Impossible.

But in a heterotopia...

A real space, outside all other spaces, where society is inverted. A place for reflection, for improvement. The cinema, a ship, a cemetary, a colony, a brothel, a prison, the grave. Heterotopias are where revolutions are planned, where your voice is the only one speaking, where history is made.

Oh, and also where you can see Demi Moore topless.

Places of this kind are outside of all places, even though it may be possible to indicate their location in reality

Again comes the concept of place, as it relates to space. Earlier Foucault mentioned “real spaces,” outside of which utopias lay. Place, however, implies real space. A heterotopia is thus a real place, reaffirming the antithesis Foucault had established before. Yet even though the heterotopia is part of the domain of the real, it still remains outside reality. So whereas the opposite of heterotopia may be utopia, the opposite of both heterotopia and utopia is reality. This seeming contradiction is due to the sameness of both elements of the antithesis.

So what does it mean for a place to be outside of all places? An enigma has been established, once again. The heterotopia is real, but outside all of reality? So what is it, then? A private, isolated space? A cell? The end?

We come back to the notion of the “Other.” The essay is entitled “The Other Spaces:” these are heterotopias. The Other places in our lives which are outside reality but in turn reflect back to us, and affect us, and may be found in reality away from everything else: these are heterotopias. Heterotopias are the other spaces, "real" spaces, but outside of our normal experiences and instead pervade our imaginations.

in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted

Earlier I had a photograph of a lake acting as a mirror, reflecting the upside down landscape residing above it. That was a utopia, the place in the mirror that is turned upside down but reflects that which is real. However, Foucault later explains in the essay that a mirror is actually a real thing. Thus in that picture, there was also a heterotopia, an actual surface that represents, contests, and inverts the real outside of it. So, as Foucault later explains, there is a place where the heterotopia and utopia converge, a Purgatory to their Heaven and Hell, where imagination and reality intersect.

which are something like counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utopiawhich are something like counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utop

Again, antithesis shows here; just as heterotopias are a counter to utopias, heterotopias themselves are still counter to the reality of Society. They are a physical manifestation of the utopia, showing yet another implication of the antithesis: the inherent sameness of both items being contrasted. The heterotopia is merely the utopia realized, so while completely different in its realness, it is still the same.

On the other hand, it seems Foucault is having some second thoughts at the antithesis nature of the heterotopia and the utopia. “Something like” and “kind of” are usually throwaways, and any who value style will remember to just get rid of them. But Foucault keeps these throwaways, which suggests the sameness between the utopia and the heterotopia is not complete, and thus the pair do not constitute a full antithesis. However, it is important to keep in mind that, once again, utopias are not real, nor can they be. So an “effectively enacted utopia” can only ever be a “kind of effectively enacted utopia;” otherwise, it will cease to exist.

places that do exist and that are formed in the very founding of society

Despite my sarcasm, these slightly obvious statements illustrate the technique Foucault is using as antithesis. In order to introduce the concept of heterotopia, Foucault sets up contrasts between the unreal and real; the main difference between utopias and heterotopias is that heterotopias coexist with Society in the domain of the real. So the reader, still yet to be formally introduced to the term “heterotopia,” knows one basic fact about it—it is real in the way heterotopias are not.

The use of antithesis also has symbolic meaning linguistically. Antithesis is one of the basic elements of dialectics, the use of argument and counter-argument. It demonstrates the yin and yang, the dual nature of reality. It represents it using the coding of language, but it’s a strong argument. As there is heaven and hell, God and Satan, Kanye West and 50 Cent, there are Utopias and Heterotopias.

but in any case these utopias are fundamentally unreal spacesbut in any case these utopias are fundamentally unreal spaces

This summation is a good time to point out again that utopias are not real.

or else society turned upside down

So Utopias are not real. Especially the perfect ones.

But utopias can put society on its head. And if a utopia is upside down, where does the utopia begin and the society end?

They present society itself in a perfected form

It’s not often one sees “society” and “perfect” in the same sentence. No wonder why Utopias are outside the realm of reality.

And since utopias themselves are works of fiction created by minds based in the real (us humans), and we are imperfect, the “perfect” societies are themselves up for argument. The perfect-ness of the society portrayed in Plato’s Republic is certainly contested, and for good reason. Since Utopias cannot actually portray perfection, but merely the opinion of perfection in the eyes of the author, the perfection Foucault alludes to here is triply unreal.

They are sites that have a general relation of direct or inverted analogy with the real space of Society

Here Foucault presents the dual nature, and thus contradiction, of the definition of utopia. Direct and inverted analogies are contradictory, yet a utopia can contain both. And yet since both are in a relationship to the “real space of Society,” both remain similar in their implied un-reality. Utopias, then, are imagined spaces, a potential energy, a vacuum which society wishes to fill.

Utopias are unreal, but societies are real. Society exists in “real space.” The only caveat is that societies are unreal as well; you can’t show me a society on a plate. Society is capitalized because it is treated as a metaphysical subject, another illusion created by the mind to make sense of things. A Utopia goes further, then; whereas Society is an intangible construct of real human interactions, Utopia is an intangible, entirely fictional construct of a Society that is in “directed or inverted analogy” to it. Thus Utopias are doubly unreal. So the reader must be very intrigued to know how heterotopias relate to all this: do they revert back to the real? Or do they instead stack again, one further step removed from the real than the Utopia?

Utopias are sites with no real place

!

First there are utopias

So, enticed, intrigued, the reader uncovers this next sentence. The first word he comes onto is, coincidentally, the word “first” itself. This connotes a step-by-step explanation, similar to a recipe; the reader is now aware that he will soon find out the definition of “heterotopia.”

However, “first” also has a time element. This establishes the relative unimportance of utopias to Foucault’s argument about heterotopias. Utopias, despite being crucial to understanding heterotopias (because understanding the utopia is the “first” step towards understanding heterotopias) are primitive, elementary, and outdated compared to the concept of the heterotopia. Already, then, Foucault has established the progressiveness of his thinking, the cutting edge of his brilliance.

Like I said, I enjoy humor.

First there are utopias: Plato, the “first” great philosopher who managed to write things down, wrote the original utopia. Plato’s Republic is so influential and engrossing that some guy said some really good things about it once. Since it is the basis for almost all Western philosophical thought, the Republic is a decent jumping off point for Foucault.

Heterotopias-The Title

Heterotopia is not recognized by Microsoft Word as being a word. So the immediate question that arises is: what is a heterotopia? Foucault created the term himself. The answer to that question is answered in the remainder of the essay. But for a short section, there is a tension created in the text. An enigma has arisen, and for as long as it remains unsolved, the text is unstable. The reader must know what is being presented in order to understand. He does not. He strives forward to learn, to resolve this tension, and it must happen quickly, or he may just as easily close the book, or X out the screen, or whatever action he may do to leave the text.

For now there are the connotations that come with the sonics of the word “heterotopia,” without any knowledge of the denotation or grammar (as it is merely a title and not used within a sentence). “Hetero-“ is a common word prefix, meaning “other, different.” It is most commonly used in reference to heterosexuals; that is, people who are sexually attracted to the “other” sex. As the title of the essay (“Of Other Spaces”) suggests, then, “heterotopias” must deal with the “Other.” So already, with knowledge of the title, the reader has an impression of what heterotopias must denote—the other. The other what, is the question.

With the sexual connotation of “hetero,” the reader is intrigued to read more. Not only is the text unstable, it is also arousing. Considering the “paradise” connotation of utopia, a “heterosexual utopia” could very easily be enticing to the average reader. It sure would entice me. So the reader reads on.

Heterotopias.

From Foucault's "Of Other Spaces" (1967), on Heterotopias.

HETEROTOPIAS

First there are the utopias. Utopias are sites with no real place. They are sites that have a general relation of direct or inverted analogy with the real space of Society. They present society itself in a perfected form, or else society turned upside down, but in any case these utopias are fundamentally unreal spaces.

There are also, probably in every culture, in every civilization, real places - places that do exist and that are formed in the very founding of society - which are something like counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted. Places of this kind are outside of all places, even though it may be possible to indicate their location in reality. Because these places are absolutely different from all the sites that they reflect and speak about, I shall call them, by way of contrast to utopias, heterotopias.

First New Media Assignment

Welcome to my Blog! Hello, friends and teachers reading this! I invite you to share in my thoughts, feelings, and experiences, as we peruse my thoughts and the web, together!

Fantastic!

Anyway, this first assignment is on a section of Foucault's essay "Of Other Spaces." I starred the text to the best of my ability and had some fun on the way, peppering the text with plenty of sarcasm as well as good insights. The preferred way to read this blog is to start from the next page. Keep that page open, it's the only way to get ahead. Open up everything in a new window. I can't force you not to close them as you go along, but keeping them open may give you a glimpse of another paralyzingly obvious heterotopia that we deal with on a daily basis.

Enjoy!