In this ambitious book, Nicholas K. Blomley undertakes an exploration of the concept of "geographies of law" from a critical theory perspective. In particular, Blomley seeks to challenge the separation of geography and law with respect to their disciplinary and political constructions and implications.

He does this initially by posing two questions through the introductory chapters. First, after discussing the history and significance of the Critical Legal Studies movement, he wonders why legal scholars and practitioners have failed to address the social and political importance of space, and spatiality, with respect to law. Secondly, he asks why geographers have failed to examine and assess the power the law has in shaping and affecting the constitution of social space or place. The basic argument offered by Blomley in the first two chapters is that, because legal knowledge and legal discourse are not created in a geographical vacuum, it is mistaken to regard the law in abstraction from the particular places in which it is constituted and given meaning. This recognition, and the fact that law is generally regarded as a unitary system, leads Blomley to propose a "spatially informed legal critique" (p. 58).

In order to carry out this form of critique, Blomley undertakes a series of case studies intended to show how the predominantly liberal legal discourse in Canada, Britain, and the USA constructs and represents place and space. For instance, in his examination of English common law, Blomley demonstrates how the perceived need for continuity and stability within England led to the development of a common law in abstraction from local custom. Overriding the plurality of places and customs, and thus communities, the common law came to express the modernist tendency toward centralization, serving as the definitive link between the individual legal subject and the nation-state. The historicity of English common law thus reveals a distinct and internal conception of space or legal geography, deployed in terms of quantification, measurement, and the "spatialization" of the relationship between the individual subject and the state of law.

Blomley's analysis is carried further, when he discusses how the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) in the USA functions in terms of the liberal privatization of the workplace. This privatization is enacted not only in terms of the patchwork of isolated cells of the workplace domain across the social landscape, but also in terms of the spatialization of social relations which result. In particular, an almost pathological split is carried out between the legal-economic spheres of the so-called private and public arenas, leading to a situation in which the rights of (private) workers are treated as separable from the rights of (public) citizens.

Blomley also considers an interesting example supplied by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Here the notion of "mobility rights" has a strong geographic quality, insofar as these rights are connected to an individual's right to choose a place at which to work. These rights are in turn set in opposition to the claims to place of communities, since the need for a mobile labor force in today's global economy is seen as much being much stronger than any perceived needs of community.

This last theme plays into Blomley's valorization throughout his book of the idea of local community. Obviously disheartened by what he regards as the pervasive individuation, alienation, and "placelessness" characteristic of modern Western society (which includes the denial of place for marginalized groups by the state), Blomley turns to the paradigms of community and localism in order to stake a claim for geographic diversity as opposed to centralization. However, this seems to be a highly problematic appeal, given that local communities are typically beset by the same conflicts, disagreements, and marginalizations as larger social entities. It can be argued that, if anything, small communities are more prone to homogenizing tendencies--such as discriminating against those whose race, religion, ethnicity, or sexuality are "different"--than are social/geographic entities composed of numerous, diverse individuals and groups.

In his haste to promote a "spatially informed legal critique" Blomley overlooks the fact that places, or communities, can be both tolerant and intolerant, liberating and oppressive. Moreover, Blomley seems content with a static sense of place, of communities where individuals can be "rooted." Yet what of communities that are more fluid and mobile, such as those of nomads and Gypsies, whose sense of place assumes a much more different cultural awareness? Or new forms of community that challenge our very definitions of place and space, such as those "virtual" communities appearing across the electronic frontiers of the internet? If there is a major drawback to Blomley's argument, it is that he overlooks the possibilities presented to critical theory by cross-cultural and multicultural understandings of space, while working with a basically univocal conception. How would geography and law then intersect with respect to these new contingencies of space, place, and community?

Despite these reservations, Blomley's book raises valuable and interesting questions. It is an original and well-researched piece of work which should lead to further efforts to critically appraise the mutual influence of geography and law in a world whose sense of place and space is undergoing tremendous change.

© 1997 Katherine Meacham

Back to the Global Justice Contents Page