Michel Foucault’s “Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias”

Spatialization, Actualization, and Organization

Figure One: Heterotopia. Image Link.

Art galleries, cemeteries, and gardens are heterotopias … but what does this mean?

In this blog post, I will analyze Michel Foucault’s renowned exploration of spatiality in his work Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias.

**Citation Note: The citation for this text is at the bottom of the blog post

— —

Michel Foucault begins Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias with a descriptive statement concerning the nineteenth century’s infatuation with history. He states:

The great obsession of the nineteenth century was, as we know, history: with its themes of development and of suspension, of crisis, and cycle, themes of the ever-accumulating past, with its great preponderance of dead men and the menacing glaciation of the world.

In illustrating this idea metaphorically, Foucault explains that the nineteenth century found its “essential mythological resources in the second principle of thermodynamics.” The second principle of thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, asserts that in a closed system, entropy increases over time. Entropy, akin to disorder or chaos, best captures the increasing disorder of the universe over time. (This video explains the second law of thermodynamics better than I ever could.)

In the context of his statement, Foucault employs the law of entropy to depict how the nineteenth century’s fixation on history involved interpreting and conceptualizing the world within a paradigm of disorder. Foucault’s declaration regarding the nineteenth century’s obsession with “development” and “suspension” indicates that these themes were heavily influenced by an ever-accumulating past leading towards an ever-greater disorder.

Figure Two: Disorder. Image Link.

However, the arrival of the twentieth century carried with it a new theme or emphasis. Foucault defines this era — novel in the context of his writings — as a shift in the focus from time to space. He states:

The present epoch will perhaps be above all the epoch of space. (emphasis mine)

Foucault’s examination identifies a transformation in the dominant episteme or cultural framework, elucidating a departure from linear, historically-oriented interpretation of events unfolding chronologically. Instead, Foucault characterizes the twentieth century as being oriented towards spatial relationships. He defines this era as being marked by “simultaneity” and “juxtaposition”:

We are in the epoch of simultaneity: we are in the epoch of juxtaposition, the epoch of the near and far, of the side-by-side, of the dispersed.

Though Foucault does not explicitly mention the rise of communication technologies here, I do wonder whether this distinct transition from a temporal to spatial focus is, to a significant extent, influenced by the proliferation of communicative technologies. For example, the advent of communication technologies has granted us the ability to envision numerous events happening simultaneously: the news shifts from domestic issues to international issues quite regularly. This recognition of events operating as an interconnected network diverges from the concept of events unfolding in a linear fashion. Communication capabilities have afforded us the ability to perceive events as occurring concurrently and side-by-side.

Thus, Foucault writes:

Experience is less understood as a “long life developing through time” than as a network that connects points and intersects with its own skein.”

Figure Three: A Skein Network. Image Link.

Foucault’s depiction of these contrasting approaches to experience, one rooted in temporality and the other in spatiality, shapes one’s ideological predisposition. Consequently, present-day ideological conflicts involve a confrontation between those adhering to a traditional, linear perspective — the “pious descendents of time” — and those embracing a more contemporary, spatial outlook, characterized as “the determined inhabitants of space.”

• Pious descendents of time: The use of the term “pious” to describe individuals who define and perceive experience as a rigid chronology is significant, highlighting an almost religious view of experience. These individuals are stuck in time, tracing their lineage — and individuality — to a preceding order.
• Determined inhabitants of space: The word “determined” is somewhat inaccurately translated, as Foucault employs the term “acharné,” which more accurately translates to relentless. These relentless individuals define and comprehend experience by and through a network of spatialization. (We will soon learn what this entail in-depth.)

At any rate, Foucault continues to define structuralism, (albeit in a rather abrupt manner). He contends that structuralism is an ambiguous term encompassing various elements “grouped under this slightly too general name.” Nevertheless, he defines structuralism as “the effort to establish … an ensemble of relations that make them appear juxtaposed …” Here is the complete quote:

Structuralism, or at least which is grouped under this slightly too general name, is the effort to establish, between elements that could have been connected on a temporal axis, an ensemble of relations that makes them appear as juxtaposed, set off against one another, implicated by each other — that makes them appear, in short, as a sort of configuration.

Observe how Foucault asserts the possibility of the relationship between elements existing along a temporal axis. Rather than denying the existence of temporality, Foucault argues that structuralism conceptualizes time as an element rather than a determining factor. The emphasis is on revealing the relationships and configuration of elements, rather than perceiving them as existing solely as part of a chronological sequence.

Foucault writes:

Structuralism does not entail denial of time; it does involve a certain manner of dealing with what we call time and what we call history.

Figure Four: Dalí’s Melting Clocks. Image Link.

In any case, current understandings of space is not a new concept; “space … is not an innovation.” In fact, “space itself has a history in Western experience.” Space is the result of a historical process — and it is uniquely and integrally situated in relation to time. To begin this analysis, or rough sketch of the history of space, Foucault begins in the Middle Ages:

In the Middle Ages there was a hierarchic ensemble of places: sacred places and profane places: protected places and open, exposed places: urban places and rural places (all these concern the real life of men). (emphasis mine)

• Sacred Places: Religious institutions such as churches and cathedrals.
• Profane Places: Secular institutions like marketplaces or homes.
• Protected Places: Sites fortified to provide security against external threats.
• Exposed Places: Sites lacking fortifications, such as the forest or open fields.
• Urban Places: Areas with a high concentration of people.
• Rural Places: Areas with a low concentration of people.

Figure Five: The Marketplace. Image Link.

The categorization of space goes beyond physical locations into cosmological realms:

In cosmological theory, there were the supercelestial places as opposed to the celestial, and the celestial place was in its turn opposed to the terrestrial place.

• Supercelestial Places: A divine, transcendent realm beyond the physical space of the universe.
• Celestial Places: The realm of stars, planets, and other celestial bodies.
• Terrestrial Places: The physical locations on Earth.

Figure Six: Celestial Places. Image Link.

Foucault further discusses additional places, such as those “where things had been put because they had been violently displaced.” These spaces are juxtaposed with “places where items naturally found stability and a fitting ground.” After giving examples of various spaces within the Middle Ages, Foucault concludes:

It was this complete hierarchy, this opposition, this intersection of places that constituted what could very roughly be called medieval space: the space of emplacement. (emphasis mine)

The space of emplacement, Foucault writes, was “opened up” by Galileo Galilei. Galileo’s influential work provided substantial support for Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, challenging the geocentric view that positioned Earth at the center of the universe. Heliocentrism, which posits that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun, disrupts the traditional belief in the Earth’s centrality. Galileo faces persecution from the Church due to his findings; his findings were deemed to be at odds with biblical teachings. Despite this, Foucault emphasizes that “the real scandal of Galileo’s work” was not his ‘discovery’ that the earth revolved around the sun, but instead, “in his constitution of an infinite, and infinitely open space.”

With Galileo, the tradition understanding of space began to erode, shifting from the static view prevalent in the Middle Ages to a more fluid understanding. In simple terms, space is now seen as dynamic, constantly in a state of flux. Identifying a place now means recognizing it as “a point in its movement.” Thus, space is characterized as a point within ongoing motion. Furthermore, the stability of a place is now defined solely by “its movement indefinitely slowed down.”

“In other words,” Foucault says, “starting with Galileo and the seventeenth century, extension was substituted for localization.”

Figure Seven: Heliocentrism. Image Link.

So far, we have learned that the Middle Ages conceptualized space as emplacement; then, with the work of Galileo, space transformed into being conceptualized as extension. But we must ask ourselves: how is space understood today? Foucault explicates:

Today[,] the site has been substituted for extension which itself had replaced emplacement. (emphasis mine)

He defines the site as “relations of proximity between points or elements.” In a formalized manner, “we can describe these relations as series, trees, or grids.” This view of space is more complex, understood as transcending a simple, physical geography. Foucault gives multiple examples of how the site serves as a complication within contemporary times:

• Data Storage in Machines: In this example, a machine that is capable of storing data (such as a computer or memory card) doesn’t change its physical space whether it contains a little or a lot of data. However, this space is still shaped by how data is organized and accessed, emphasizing that space is more about relationships and configurations rather than solely physical locations.
• Circulation of Discrete Elements: On this point, Foucault gives the example of automobile traffic and sounds on a telephone line. The freeway occupies a constant physical location; however, a high volume of cars in this space, coupled with unpredictable driving behavior, creates an ever-evolving spatial dynamic. The example of sounds on a telephone line is similar: the telephone line has a consistent path, but the sounds on the line vary, and are unpredictable, depending on context and environment.
• Identification of marked or coded elements: In this context, while Foucault doesn’t provide a specific example, it appears he is explaining that space can be organized either formally or informally. The presence of coded elements within a space introduces alterations to its dynamics.

Figure Eight: Urban Realism (Freeway). Image Link.

In resonance with his exploration of biopolitics, Foucault articulates that the challenge of siting or placement is rooted in demography. Demography, as per Oxford Languages, involves studying statistics like “births, deaths, income, or the incidence of disease.” Foucault notes that he doesn’t align with Malthusian perspectives regarding the question of human habitation. While acknowledging the significance of “whether there will be enough space for men in the world,” Foucault’s primary concern lies in the interconnectedness and relationships amongst various sites.

The relationships between sites involve considerations such as:

propinquity, what type of storage, circulation, marking, and classification of human elements should be adopted in a given situation in order to achieve a given end.

This echoes themes found in biopolitics, akin to Foucault’s exploration in works like The History of Sexuality, which dissects the arrangement of bodies in a society and exercise of power over life. Clearly, the organization, categorization, and classification of bodies transpire within and across space, functioning as a relational element between sites. Hence, “our epoch is one in which space takes for us the form of relations among sites.”

Foucault concludes that “the anxiety of our era” revolves around space, positioning time as merely one of the numerous “distributive operations” applicable to elements dispersed in space. In essence, time is perceived as a factor influencing the arrangement of sites, rather than an all-encompassing force.

Figure Nine: Body-Grid. Image Link.

Despite the formalization of various technologies designed to appropriate space, Foucault observes that “contemporary space is perhaps still not entirely desanctified,” unlike time. While time was once considered sacred, it has largely lost that status; however, the contemporary era still perceives space to be sacred. Foucault emphasizes a specific “theoretical desanctification of space” through Galileo’s discoveries, yet the complete desanctification of space has not been achieved.

As space remains incompletely desanctified, our lives are governed by an array of seemingly contradictory oppositions. Institutions, organizations, and practices have perpetuated these oppositions, as noted by Foucault:

These are oppositions that we regard as simple givens: for example between private space and public space, between family space and social space, between cultural space and useful space, between the space of leisure and that of work.

This meticulous maintenance of spatial division is “nurtured by the hidden presence of the sacred.”

Figure Ten: Sacred Space. Image Link.

Drawing on the contributions of Gaston Bachelard and various phenomenologists, Foucault explains that our living environment is not characterized by uniformity and emptiness. Instead, he contends that we inhabit a space that is “thoroughly imbued with quantities” and, possibly, elements of imagination.

Foucault isolates three categories of space:

1. “The space of our primary perception”: This is the space we perceive in our day-to-day lives. Spaces of primary perception can manifest as “light, ethereal, transparent space, or again a dark, rough, encumbered space.”
2. “The space of our dreams”: This refers the spaces we encounter in our dreams. Dream spaces can take the form of “a space from above, of summits, or on the contrary a space from below of mud.”
3. The space of our “passions”: This is associated with spaces tied to our intense emotions. Spaces related to passions are characterized as “a space that can be flowing like sparkling water, or space that is fixed, congealed, like stone or crystal.”

The analysis of these three categories of space concern internal space.

Figure Eleven: Dream Space. Image Link.

The nature of space goes beyond mere neutrality; space actively molds our identities and experiences. Describing this space as heterogeneous, Foucault notes how space “draws us out of ourselves.” Our existence is intricately woven into a spatialized network of relations:

We live inside a set of relations that delineates sites which are irreducible to one another and absolutely not superimposable on one another.

So … how might we go about describing different sites?

Foucault suggests that we can characterize distinct sites by examining the network of relations that defines them. Illustrating this, he uses the example of transportation-related sites, including streets and trains. According to Foucault, a train is “an extraordinary bundle of relations” serving multiple functions: it is a means of travel, a space through which people move, and an entity in motion.

Expanding on this approach, Foucault proposes describing various sites through the “cluster of relations that allows them to be defined.” He provides examples:

1. “Sites of relaxation: cafes, cinemas, beaches”
2. “The closed or semi-closed sites of rest — the house, the bedroom, the bed, et cetera.”

While Foucault outlines the methods of distinguishing and describing various sites, his particular interest lies in a subset of spaces. He writes:

I am interested in certain [sites] that have the curious property of being in relation with all the other sites, but in such a way as to suspect, neutralize, or invent the set of relations that they happen to designate, mirror, or reflect.

In simple terms, these sites raise uncertainty regarding the anticipated set of relations. In doing so, they challenge the conventional expectations of relationships, paving the way for the introduction of novel and unconventional connections. Foucault continues:

These spaces, as it were, which are linked with all the others, which however contradict all the other sites, are of two main types.

These two main types are utopias and heterotopias.

Figure Twelve: Mapping Heterotopias. Image Link.

Heterotopias

To properly understand heterotopias, Foucault begins with a description of what constitutes a utopia.

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.

Utopias lack a tangible existence because they are never materialized locations. They mirror elements of society as it currently stands but cannot constitute society in a literal fashion. It would be regrettable to delve into the concept of utopia without acknowledging Thomas More’s seminal work, Utopia, first published in 1516. This influential book explores a fictitious society, called Utopia, that embodies perfection. The map of Utopia is seen in Figure Thirteen.

Figure Thirteen: More’s Utopia. Image Link.

While utopias are described by Foucault as “sites with no real place,” he obesrves the presence of tangible locations within every civilization. These places, termed “counter-sites,” representive an effectively realized utopia. However, counter-sites exist “outside of all places even though it may be possible to indicate their location in reality.” These (counter-)sites are identified as heterotopias, embodying enacted utopian ideals.

Foucault characterizes the intermediary realm between utopias and heterotopias as a “joint experience,” illustrated by the mirror. On one hand, the mirror epitomizds a utopias, being a “placeless place.” As one gazes into the mirror, they witness themselves in an alternate dimension. Conversely, the mirror represents a heterotopia as it exists materially, prompting the observer to recognize their own absence:

From the standpoint of the mirror I discover my absence from the place where I am since I see myself over there. Starting from this gaze that is, as it were, directed toward me, from the ground of this virtual space that is on the other side of the glass, I come back toward myself. (emphasis mine)

To clarify, mirrors operate as heterotopias in that they possess a physical existence, allowing the act of looking in the mirror to constitute a tangible, lived reality that intertwines with the surrounding space. However, they also exhibit an unreal aspect, as their perception necessitates traversing through a virtual point located beyond their physical confines.

Figure Fourteen: I’m Starting With the Pig in the Mirror. Image Link.

Ultimately, we must ask ourselves:

How can [heterotopias] be described? What meaning do they have?

Rather than calling the study of heterotopias a ‘science’, Foucault notes that we must imagine a systemic description that treats heterotopias as an object of study. He writes:

As a sort of simultaneously mythic and real contestation of the space in which we live, this description could be called heterotopology. (emphasis mine)

In Foucault’s heterotopological analysis of space, he isolates six characteristics of heterotopias.

Figure Fifteen: Heterotopology. Image Link.

First Principle

Its first principle is that there is probably not a single culture in the world that fails to constitute heterotopias.

In the formation of heterotopias, every human society has remained consistent. According to Foucault, there are two main types of heterotopias: heterotopias of crisis and heterotopias of deviation.

Crisis heterotopias were prevalent in primitive societies:

There are privileged or sacred or forbidden places, reserved for individuals who are, in relation to society and to the human environment in which they live, in a state of crisis: adolescents, menstruating women, pregnant women, the elderly, etc.

From my understanding, heterotopias of crisis pertain to individuals undergoing significant life transitions. In primitive societies, this could include adolescents transitioning into adulthood, individuals experiencing menstruation and pregnancy, and the elderly encountering old age for the first time. These pivotal moments in one’s life mark transitions in societal roles and responsibilities, often accompanies by rituals or designated spaces to facilitate the process.

In contemporary times, heterotopias of crisis are disappearing, yet institutions like nineteenth-century boarding schools or military service for young men serve as primary examples. These sites are designated as crisis heterotopias due to the symbolic transition into adulthood that accompanies the entry of young adolescent men into these environments. Foucault specifically mentions male virility in these spaces, where these sites offer instruction to youths away from the familiarity of their homes.

Similarly, another instance of heterotopias of crisis would be that of girls in the mid-twentieth century and the tradition of the “honeymoon trip.” In certain societies, newlywed couples would embark on a journey where the woman would undergo the loss of her virginity (“deflowering”), symbolizing the transition into married life. Foucault notes that “the young woman’s deflowering could take place ‘nowhere’ … this heterotopia [exists] without geographical markers.” To put simply, this phenomenon exists ‘nowhere’, or rather, in a realm of privacy because this sexual act is considered taboo and not openly discussed.

Figure Sixteen: 19th Century Boarding School. Image Link.

As stated previously, heterotopias of crisis are disappearing and are becoming replaced by heterotopias of deviation:

Those in which individuals whose behavior is deviant in relation to the required mean or norm are placed.

Examples of heterotopias of deviation include rest homes, psychiatric hospitals, and prisons. In these cases, individuals labled as deviant and organized and confined into spaces designed to enforce and regulate normative behavior upon them. Foucault gives the retirement home as an example of a space on the “borderline between the heterotopia of crisis and the heterotopia of deviation.” This is because old age is not only deemed as a crisis, but also a deviation because “our society [is one] where leisure is the rule [and] idleness is a sort of deviation.”

Figure Seventeen: (Panopto)Prison. Image Link.

Second Principle

The second principle of this description of heterotopias is that a society, as its history unfolds, can make an existing heterotopia function in a very different fashion.

This second principle conceptualizes heterotopias as social constructions capable of change and alterations. Heterotopias function (and are contingent) “upon the synchrony of the culture in which it exists.” Foucault illustrates the heterotopia of the cemetery as an example of a heterotopia in a state of flux, in accordance with social production:

[The cemtetery] is a space that is however connected with all the sites of the city, state or society or village, etc., since each individual, each family has relatives in the cemetery.

Foucault notes that western culture has always had the cemetery as a heterotopia; yet, the cemetery has undergone integral changes. Up until the end of the eighteenth century, “the cemetery was placed at the heart of the city, next to the church” with a “hierarchy of possible tombs.” Traditionally, cemeteries have been deemed as sacred or holy sites; however, the secularization of culture has shifted the view of the cemetery. Death is no longer considered a taboo subject as “western culture has established what is termed the cult of the dead.”

Culture has consistently changed in respect to death and the body as the previously held belief in the resurrection of the body and immortality of the soul “was not accorded to the body’s remains.” Yet, with an increase in the belief that people do not occupy or possess a soul gives increased attention to the dead body which is the sole trace of our existence. Starting at the beginning of the nineteenth century, everyone has begun to cling to the belief that they have the right to a box for their deceased body. This approach to death is correlated with the fact that “cemeteries began to be located at the outside border of cities.”

The evolution of attitudes towards death have constantly shifted, specifically in regards to death becoming a private matter rather than a communal one. Society had “an obsession with death as an ‘illness’” that persisted until the end of the eighteenth century. With the “the shift of cemeteries toward the suburbs” there was a shift away from viewing death as an illness:

The cemeteries then came to constitute, no longer the sacred and immortal heart of the city, but the other city, where each family possesses its dark resting place.

Figure Eighteen: Cult of the Dead. Image Link.

Third Principle

Third principle. The heterotopia is capable of juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces, several sites that are in themselves incompatible.

Heterotopias are unique in their ability to bring multiple sites together — even if these sites are deemed as contradictory or in opposition to one another. Foucault utilizes the example of the theater stage and the movie theater to illustrate how several sites have the capacity to exist in a single, real space. However, Foucault finds the garden to be one of the oldest examples of a heterotopia that takes the form of contradictory sites.

He writes:

We must not forget that in the Orient the garden, an astonishing creation that is now a thousand years old, had very deep and seemingly superimposed meanings.

Foucault highlights the traditional gardens of the Persians, serving as sacred spaces that attempted to “bring together inside its rectangle four parts representing the four parts of the world.” The focal point of the traditional Persian garden was the water fountain positioned at the center; the vegetation in these gardens were arranged in a manner that converged in the central space of the garden. Foucault continues to explicate how carpets were initially reproductions of gardens: they were originally designed to mimic gardens. Foucault states:

The garden is a rug onto which the whole world comes to enact its symbolic perfection, and the rug is a sort of garden that can move across space

Figure Nineteen: Persian Carpet. Image Link.

Foucault’s portrayal of the garden is truly remarkable, as he describes the garden as “the smallest parcel of the world” coupled with “the totality of the world.”

One of my favorite quotes of the reading is this bit on gardens:

The garden has been a sort of happy, universalizing heterotopia since the beginnings of antiquity (our modern zoological gardens spring from that source).

Figure Twenty: Persian Garden. Image Link.

Fourth Principle

Fourth principle. Heterotopias are most often linked to slices in time — which is to say that they open onto what might be termed, for the sake of symmetry, heterochronies.

In order for heterotopias to reach their full effect, individuals must depart from conventional understandings of time, necessitating a temporal transformation. Foucault underscores this by revisiting the example of the cemetery:

The cemetery begins with this strange heterochrony, the loss of life, and with this quasi-eternity in which her permanent lot is dissolution and disappearance.

Cemeteries represent a peculiar temporal shift: the transition from life to death. This profound encounter with the loss of life disrupts traditional conceptions of time. When Foucault discusses cemeteries representing a “quasi-eternity”, he is referring to the fact that the end of one’s life represents the end of time for the individual, yet the cemetery temporally persists.

Figure Twenty-One: Cemeteries and Quasi-Eternities. Image Link.

At any rate, there are two types of heterotopias concerning time: heterotopias of indefinitely accumulating time and heterotopias of precarious time.

In the context of heterotopias of indefinitely accumulating time, Foucault gives the example of museums and libraries:

Museums and libraries have become heterotopias in which time never stops building up and topping its own summit, whereas in the seventeenth century, even at the end of the century, museums and libraries were the expression of an individual choice.

Here, Foucault highlights that museums and libraries have undergone a transformative shift. In the seventeenth century, museums and libraries were an expression of individual choice, with these spaces being curated to suit specific personalities. Yet, in contemporary times, museums and libraries build up information and events, “topping its own summit.” The notion of accumulating everything within these spaces constitutes a comprehensive archive that encloses “in one place all times, all epochs, all forms, [and] all tastes.” In doing so, museums and libraries reflect a space that transcends time, appearing to be immune to the effects of temporality. The entirety of human history, knowledge, and achievements is preserved indefinitely.

Figure Twenty-Two: Los Angeles Public Library. Image Link.

On the other hand, heterotopias of precarious time pertain to “time in its most flowing, transitory, precarious aspect, to time in the mode of the festival.” In this sense, heterotopias of this kind are temporary, embracing the present moment. Foucault explicates:

These heterotopias are not oriented toward the eternal, they are rather absolutely temporal [chroniques].

To exemplify this type of heterotopia, Foucault cites the fairgrounds as an example. These fairgrounds are described as “marvelous empty sites on the outskirts of cities,” characterized by “stands, displays, heteroclite objects, wrestlers, snakewomen, fortune-tellers, and so forth.” Additional examples that come to mind include raves, circuses, and music festivals, given their ephemeral nature. In recent years, according to Foucault, “a new kind of temporal heterotopia has been invented” which he identifies as vacation villages — particularly Polynesian villages “that offer a compact three weeks of primitive and eternal nudity to the inhabitants of the cities.” Despite the temporal limitation of three weeks, this space offers a sense of timelessness.

Figure Twenty-Three: Woodstock

Foucault continues by describing spaces that exhibit elements of both heterotopias concerning the accumulation of time and heterotopias concerning time as a precarious element. He gives the example of the huts of Djerba:

The huts of Djerba are in a sense relatives of libraries and museums, for the rediscovery of Polynesian life abolishes time; yet the experience is just as much the rediscovery of time, it is as if the entire history of humanity reaching back to its origin were accessible in a sort of immediate knowledge.

Though, I am not sure why Foucault describes the huts of Djerba in relation to Polynesian life. These concepts are not related in a literal fashion; it seems that Foucault might be describing a metaphorical connection between these two sites.

Figure Twenty-Four: The Huts of Djerba. Image Link.

Fifth Principle

Fifth principle. Heterotopias always presuppose a system of opening and closing that both isolates them and makes them penetrable.

In the fifth principle, heterotopias exist outside of normal societal functions and conventions, and are isolated from everyday life. Foucault notes that heterotopias have a system of opening and closing, indicating that heterotopias regulate access; heterotopias are both isolated and penetrable.

Foucault notes that heterotopic sites, unlike public spaces, typically have restricted access. Entry to these sites can be mandatory, such as in prisons or military conscription, or necessitate specific rites or purifications. In the context of purification, two examples are given to illustrate religious and hygenic practices: the “hammin of the Moslems” and “Scandinavian saunas.”

Figure Twenty-Five: Scandanavian Sauna. Image Link.

Though Foucault gives examples of heterotopic sites that have restricted access, he notes that “there are other [spaces] … that seem to be pure and simple openings, but that generally hide curious exclusions.” These sites craft the illusion of inclusivity, but in reality, individuals are excluded in some manner. Foucault gives the example of “the famous bedrooms that existed on the great farms of Brazil and elsewhere in South America.” He states:

The entry door did not lead into the central room where the family lived, and every individual or traveler who came by had the right to open this door, to enter into the bedroom and to sleep there for a night. Now these bedrooms were such that the individual who went into them never had access to the family’s quarter the visitor was absolutely the guest in transit, was not really the invited guest.

To put simply, although visitors were permitted to entier, they were constantly segregated from the family’s living area. This created a transient status for the visitor, who never fully assumed the role of the guest. Another example that Foucault utilizes is the American motel room(s). He writes:

… The famous American motel rooms where a man goes with his car and his mistress and where illicit sex is both absolutely sheltered and absolutely hidden, kept isolated without however being allowed out in the open.

Foucault implies that although motel rooms appear to be open to everyone, their utilization for illicit sexual encounters marks these sites as private or exclusive spaces. Despite the appearance of accessibility, the secretive activities that occur within these spaces create an aura of exclusivity, kept hidden from public scrutiny.

Figure Twenty-Six: American Motel. Image Link.

Sixth Principle

Sixth principle. The last trait of heterotopias is that they have a function in relation to all the space that remains.

In the context of their relation to “all the space that remains”, heterotopias manifest between two extreme poles: heterotopias of illusion and heterotopias of compensation.

Heterotopias of illusion expose real spaces by presenting themselves as a distorted or exaggerated version of reality; this presentation makes everyday spaces appear unreal. Foucault gives the example of “those famous brothels of which we are now deprived” as an illustration of heterotopias of illusion. Individuals who frequent brothels become used to this uninhibited expression of sexual desire. As a result of the heightened excitement from brothels, individuals may find day-to-day sexual experiences, outside of brothels, as inauthentic.

Figure Twenty-Seven: Brothels (Of Illusion). Image Link.

Heterotopias of compensation are in opposition to heterotopias of illusion. In this type of heterotopic space, heterotopias of compensation provide an alternative, idealized space that is “another real space, as perfect, as meticulous, as well arranged as ours is messy, ill constructed, and jumbled.” In other words, heterotopias of compensation are spaces that are planned and organized; they are well-arranged sites that stand in opposition to the chaos of everyday life. Foucault suggests that certain colonies, particularly those established during the first wave of colonization in the seventeenth century, may have functioned as examples of such heterotopias.

These Puritan colonies were guided and structured by adherence to strict Puritan principles, where every aspect of daily life was regulated in accordance to religious doctrine. The Puritans, in an attempt to structure space, offered what they believed to be a perfect form of order and community. It’s worth noting that the Puritans were in conflict with Indigenous peoples, finding their space to be utilized improperly. (There are important, political implications to how space is spatialized and situated.)

Figure Twenty-Eight: The Puritans Part One. Image Link.

Foucault also highlights “those extraordinary Jesuit colonies that were founded in South America.” These colonies were meticulously planned and regulated by the Jesuit missionaries, specifically in Paraguay. Every aspect of life — and all of space — was carefully organized: the layout of the village was “laid out according to a rigorous plan”, with the church occupying the central location. Other essential structures, like the school and the cemetery, were situated around the village center.

The village was situated and organized to symbolically represent the sign of Christ:

In front of the church, an avenue set out that another crossed at right angles; each family had its little cabin along these two axes and thus the sign of Christ was exactly reproduced. Christianity marked the space and geography of the American world with its fundamental sign.

To put simply, each family had its cabin situated along two intersecting axes, symbolizing the cross — a central symbol in Christianity that represents the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Everyone in these colonies practiced the same religion, woke up at the same time, began work at the same time, and went to bed at the same time. Each aspect of daily life was regulated and controlled.

Figure Twenty-Nine: The Puritans Part Two. Image Link.

Ultimately, Foucault writes that “brothels and colonies are two extreme types of heterotopia.” He concludes Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias with the boat as an example of a heterotopias:

The boat is a floating piece of space, a place without a place, that exists by itself, that is closed in on itself and at the same time is given over to the infinity of the sea and that, from port to port, from tack to tack, from brothel to brothel, it goes as far as the colonies in search of the most precious treasures they conceal in their gardens, you will understand why the boat has not only been for our civilization, from the sixteenth century until the present, the great instrument of economic development (I have not been speaking of that today), but has been simultaneously the greatest reserve of the imagination.

Essentially, the boat is physically separated from the land, existing on the sea. Yet, it is a self-contained environment: the boat is closed off from the outside world while simultaneously exposed to the vastness of the ocean. Because of its ability to travel, the boat is always undergoing transformation. Foucault writes:

The ship is the heterotopia par excellence. In civilizations without boats, dreams dry up, espionage takes the place of adventure, and the police take the place of pirates.

Figure Thirty: Heteroboatia. Image Link.

Conclusion

Overall, Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias is an insightful text that delves into the realization of space. Through an exploration of six key principles of heterotopias, Foucault offers a compelling analysis that details diverse heterotopic spaces. Stay tuned for an upcoming blog post where I will discuss my garden as a heterotopia.

Figure Thirty-One: Utopias and Heterotopias. Image Link.

— —

Citation:

• Foucault, Michel. “Des Espace Autres,” March 1967 Translated from the French by Jay Miskowiec. Architecture /Mouvement/ Continuité. October, 1984.
• The French text can be found here.