!"#"$% !'$()*'+,) - !'$()*'+,) .

/0 1"#"$%
2',)'%%" 34"5'5"
6/$.,0,$*, 20/*,,("$%)
71/0,$*,8 7,409'0:-;9$, <=><
Planum. 1he Journal o Urbanism, n. 2, ol.2,2013
www.planum.net | ISSN 123-0993
Proceedings published in October 2013
?@,11 5A, BA0,)A/1(C
D$*/9$5,0"$% E5A,0$,))
Azzurra Muzzonigro
Deelopment Planning Unit -UCL , LAC-Uniersita` Roma 1re
email azzzmuzzzgmail.com
1el -39 333 1060543
Camillo Boano
Deelopment Planning Unit -UCL
email c.boanoucl.ac.uk
1el -44 ,0, 20 69 1111
1his paper oers a short renection on the role o space in the act o the encounter with Otherness, which the authors
iew as a catalyst or a radical social and cultural transormation o society. 1he main argument ley in the act that in
between the Sel and the Other there is a space, a gap - the Lacanian Feld o non meaning`- where dierent entities
enter into relation producing a new hybrid one that transcends the initial.
1his encounter produces a space o conrontation, a space in-between things, a threshold: a place where dierent
worlds meet`, a space that consents the reciprocal knowledge and recognition. 1o dwell the threshold` means to dwell
that distance that separates such dierent entities. 1o dwell the threshold` becomes a practice allowing to perorate the
boundary between the Sel and the Other. By looking at the act o dwelling the threshold` as inherent architectural
capacities, the paper illustrates its essence with three spatial methaphores: the Border or the zone o interaction among
dierences`, the Circle or the space o play as catalyst o encounter` and the Interstices or ragments o dierent
spatial orders`.
1his ramework, ar rom being normatie and oer-comprehensie, attempts to open possible paths o interpretation
about exceptionality, and shed light oer the spatial possibilities o encounters.
Planum. 1he Journal o Urbanism | Conerence Proceedings 10 | 1
!"# %&"#' ()* &"# +#,-
\hat do we reer to when we talk about the Other and what is its relationship with the Sel According to
Lacan there is a close relationship between the Sel and the Other: the human being has always to learn
rom scratch rom the Other what he has to do`, a relationship entirely produced in a process o gap` ,La-
can, 193: 206, which is circular between the subject and the Other. Lacan deFnes this gap` as Alienation,
a Feld o non-meaning` ,ibid., in the joining between the subject and the Other, between the !"#$% and the
&"'$#$% that has as its consequence a new entity that is $"#()"* ,$"- $,* ()" ,()"*` ,ibid: 211,. As the Sloenian
philosopher Mladen Dolar points out the question o the Other brings orth not merely the numerical two,
the second ollowing the Frst, but the question o something o a dierent order, something that is not a
mere extension o the Frst, but rather something that would really present two, count or two, the two hete-
rogeneous to the one and recalcitrant to the progression o ones into inFnity` ,Dolar, 2012: 1,. Accordingly,
the two that we are ater is not the binary two o equal or dierent ones, extensions o the same order,
but the two o the one and the Other` ,ibid.,. 1his irreducible gap` is what Lacan had deFned as Feld o
non-meaning` between the Sel and the Other, characterised by a lack and a oid.
\hat constitutes the mediation between the Sel and the Other and what is the reciprocal position could
possibly be elaborated and searched in the realm o liminality. As per 1urner`s explanation, the attributes
o liminality or o liminal ."*/,$'" ,threshold people`, are necessarily ambiguous, since this condition and
these persons elude or slip through the network o classiFcations that normally locate states and positions in
cultural space.` ,1urner, 1969: 95,. \hat liminality implies is that social lie is a type o dialectical process`
in which the passage rom one state to another, or example rom homogeneity to dierentiation, creates
a limbo o statuslessness`. In such a process, the opposites, as it were, constitute one another and are
mutually indispensable` ,ibid.:9,.
It is in the liminal zones o uncertainty and ambiguity between the Sel and the Other that it is possible to
challenge stereotype and ear o Alterity. Building on Lacan`s concept o Alienation, and on 1urner`s Limi-
nality and translating them into cultural terms, Bhabha argues that the encounter o elements belonging to
dierent, een contradictory instances, produces a process o mutual hybridisation that oercomes the sin-
gular identities and creates something new beyond them, which is undamental in order to produce political
change. In this process a space is produced o indeterminacy o meaning` and slippage o the signiFer`
,ibid.,, it is the space o translation, which opens up a site or negotiation o cultural dierence. As Bhabha
argues: 1he process o cultural hybridity gies rise to something dierent, something new and unrecogni-
sable, a new area o negotiation o meaning and representation` ,Bhabha, cited in Rutherord, 1998,.
laing deFned the relationship between the Sel and the Other as substantiated o a gap` where the con-
rontation among dierences takes place, this paper will now ocus on the role o space in the potential
emancipating transormation o society embedded in the act o the encounter with Otherness.
!"# %&"#' ()* +.(/#0 -'12 3"#&#'1&1.4(5 1- *4--#'#)/#6 &1 5.(/#5 1- &"'#5"1,*
In an exceptional lecture, Michel loucault asserted that in eery ciilisation there exist spaces outside all
places` that unction as realised, or materialised, utopia. le maintained that these spaces hae the curious
property o being in relation with all other sites, but in such a way as to suspend, neutralise, or inert the
set o relations that they happen to designate, mirror, or renect` ,loucault, 1984: 24,. loucault`s )"("*,(,.#'
would break and een subert the logic ingrained in dominating spaces as they would expose an alternatie
to the status quo. loucaultian )"("*,(,.#'/ represent a challenging entry point to the spatial exploration o the
relationship between the Sel and the Other, towards the deFnition o the role o space in the process o
encounter among dierences and hybridisation o cultures.
Planum. 1he Journal o Urbanism | Conerence Proceedings 11 | 1
1he word !"#"$%#%&'( consists o two parts deried rom the Greek !"#"$%) ,another, and #%&%) ,place,. loucault
deFnes them as counter-arrangement, o eectiely realized utopia, in which all the real arrangements,
all the other real arrangements that can be ound within society, are at one and the same time represented,
challenged and oerturned: a sort o place that lies outside all places and yet is actually localisable` ,ibid.,.
loucault portrays them using the metaphor o the mirror. Len though it can be considered as an utopia,
in the sense that it is a place without a place, the mirror -he argues- unctions as a !"#"$%#%&'(, since it makes
the place that I occupy, wheneer I look at mysel in the glass, both absolutely real - it is in act linked to
all the surrounding space, and absolutely unreal, or in order to be perceied it has o necessity to pass that
irtual point that is situated down there` ,ibid.,.
Because o their inerse relation with real spaces o society, !"#"$%#%&'() oten accommodate dierences.
1hrough oering a shelter to people who do not Ft into the dominant social norm` ,Cenzatti, 2008: 6,,
they constitute the place rom where dierent liestyles and cultural identities emerge out o the struggle
or recognition`. In this sense Cenzatti deFnes as !"#"$%#%&'() o dierence` those places where irreconci-
lable spaces coexist, but what constitutes irreconcilability is constantly contested and changing` ,ibid: 9,.
1his argument stands on a combination o Leebre`s thoughts on space as being, rather than an inert sup-
port o social action, a part o the social action itsel, and o loucault`s thoughts on !"#"$%#%&'() as making
explicit the ragmentary, transitory and transormational nature o the production o space ,ibid.,. Building
on these concepts, and on Cenzatti`s argument that conrontation between dierent publics is an essential
element o plurality, since it is through disagreement and connict that dierent social groups aoid isolating
themseles or being pushed into isolation` ,ibid: 83,, we Fnally start to enisage those spaces that consent
social conrontation as #!$")!%*+ spaces.
,!$")!%*+) represent the physical maniestation o what Bhabha deFnes the space o the entre` that carries
the burden o the meaning o culture` ,Bhabha, 1988: 209,. As he argues: It is in this space that we will
Fnd those words with which we can speak o Ourseles and Others. And by exploring this hybridity, this
third space`, we may elude the politics o polarity and emerge as the others o ourseles` ,ibid.,. 1he con-
cept o space in-between, or third space`, as it was Frst deFned by Soja ,1996, was also explored by Luke
and Luke ,1999: 234,: 1he third space is the site and moment o hybridity, o ambialence, o reworking
and renaming, o suberting and recreating identity rom among multi-embedded social constructions o
Otherness.` A dierent nuanced notion o #!$")!%*+ was introduced by Starides, in his ,%-($+) #!" /'#0 %1
,!$")!%*+)` as: the spatiality o a public culture o mutually aware, interdependent and inoled identities`
,Starides, 2006: 1,. Again, building on Leebre`s idea o space participating in social action, Starides ar-
gues that a rich network o practices transorms eery aailable space into a potential theatre o expressie
acts o encounter` ,ibid: 2,, creating opportunities or social and cultural change. Under this light, social
action, through the direct inolement o people, has the power to actiate moments o encounter with
socially recognisable otherness`, and to catalyse the potential physical transormation o space as a result
o this encounter.
Starting to analyse the relation between space and alterity rom loucaultian !"#"$%#%&'(), as they constitute a
spatial arrangement that accommodates Otherness, the attention has been moed onto the space in-betwe-
en !"#"$%#%&'() and their surrounding context, which they renect, represent and challenge. ,!$")!%*+ has been
identiFed as a spatiality that allows social conrontation to take place and, eentually, actiate processes o
physical transormation o space. Attention will be now ocused on the ery act, the praxis o dwelling as
the condition or #!$")!%*+) to catalyse social, cultural and physical change.
Planum. 1he Journal o Urbanism | Conerence Proceedings 12 | 1
!"#$%%&'( *+$ !"#$%"&'() ,- ./0'*&$/ 0. */,'-.0/1,*&0'
Ater haing proFled spaces o !"#$%"&'( as those in-between, liminal zones o ambiguity, where the en-
counter among dierences takes place, it is crucial to introduce the notion o dwelling as the practice that
allows this processes o hybridisation to happen. In his *&$!#+, ./012/1$, 3"&21", leidegger considers dwel-
ling as the ery essence o the human being: 1o be a human being means to be on the earth as a mortal. It
means to dwell` ,leidegger, 191: 1ch,, thereore building as a consequence o dwelling. It is dwelling the
space what substantiates the act o building: \e do not dwell because we hae built, but we build and hae
built because we dwell` ,ibid.,. In other words, building implies dwelling.
1o illustrate the ways in which building belongs to dwelling, leidegger uses the example o the bridge. le
argues that it is the bridge, through connecting two banks, that reeals the banks to be banks: a location
comes into existence only by irtue o the bridge. 1he bridge is a thing`. \hile connecting two dierent
things, the bridge is a place itsel, only something that is itsel a location can make space or a site`. 1he
bridge allows connecting places ariously near or ar among each other and rom the bridge. It occupies the
distance between the things, a distance, in Greek stadion, means the interal or interening space between
things. Also Simmel in his 4#5(1$ /0( 6&&# looks at the bridge as the element that, both physically and symbo-
lically, connects things that are separated. As he argues: things must Frst be isolated rom one another in
order to be together. Practically as well as logically, it would be meaningless to connect that which was not
separated, and indeed that which also remains separated in some sense` ,Simmel, 1994: 66-69,. Besides
the bridge, Simmel also explores another element, the door. It shares the same nature o the bridge o al-
lowing the connection between things but the door represents in a more decisie manner how separating
and connecting are only two sides o precisely the same act` ,ibid.,. By transcending the distance between
things, the door symbolizes separation and connection in a stronger way than the bridge. It represents the
possibility o a permanent interchange`. Dierently rom the bridge, which is a line stretched between
two points, thereore connects Fnite with Fnite, the door connects the Fnite with the limitlessness o all
possible directions` ,ibid.,. In synthesis: the bridge indicates how humankind uniFes the separateness o
merely natural being, and the door how it separates the uniorm, continuous unity o natural being` ,ibid.,.
Bridge and door represent !"#$%"&'(% as they recognise the distance between things o dierent nature, and
consent their spatial conrontation and negotiation o meaning. Being dwelling the essence o building, and
!"#$%"&'( the spatial deice that consents the encounter among dierences, we explore (7$''501 !"$ !"#$%"&'(`
as the rontier or social, spatial and cultural transormation. Starides points out the liberating potential
embedded into the !"#$%"&'(: it becomes the means to inent the uture now, as new orms o collectie
sel-determination create ambiguous orms o coexistence in space. 1o be able to approach otherness in its
potentially liberating comparison to dominant regulating alues, means to be able to inent passages towards
Otherness. It also means to be able to understand otherness as a process rather than as a state` ,Starides,
2010: 14-15,. lor this process to happen, on the one hand, identities need to be open, instead o Fxated
into rigid boundaries, as well as human beings need to hae, nexible borders oering meeting points with
otherness` ,ibid.,, rather than no borders at all. Similarly, spaces should be simultaneously separated and
connected through a porous membrane. As Starides argues: a borderline, transormed into a porous
membrane, separates while connecting bordering areas` ,ibid.,.
As explored earlier, through Bhabha, these nexible borders consent processes o engagement and hybri-
disation to take place. 3"#$%"&'(%, while symbolising and concretising the act o simultaneously connecting
and separating, represent the point where two dierent worlds meet` ,ibid: 16,, so to (7$'' !"$ !"#$%"&'(`
means to approach the Other through a process o mutual awareness`. It means to dwell that distance that
separates dierent entities by procuring not to increase it, thus transorming it into hostility, nor to eliminate
it, which would lead to assimilation o dierences: encounter is realised by keeping the necessary distance
while crossing it at the same time` ,Starides, 2010: 16-18,. Bordering thereore becomes the rontier or
social and cultural transormation as it, like eery limit, implies the possibility to be crossed.
Planum. 1he Journal o Urbanism | Conerence Proceedings 13 | 1
!"#$$%&' )*# )*+#,*-$.` constitutes the practice o perorating, proaning such boundaries between the Sel
and the Other, which allows the encounter, translation o meaning and negotiation o identities among
dierences. In order to unold the meaning o these spaces or encounter, this paper will now proFle three
eatures o )*+#,*-$. spaces, three dierent means to approach the spatial maniestation o thresholds. /-+0
.#+1 2%+3$# and 4&)#+,)%3#, are thus introduced as spatial metaphors, to isualize )*+#,*-$., in space. It is through
dwelling these spaces that the encounter with Otherness becomes possible.
!"#$$%&' )*# /-+.#+1 2%+3$# +&, 4&)#+,)%3#,- ./+0#. +&, /1+0)%0#. 23 #&024&)#1
As a link between theory and practice, /-+.#+1 2%+3$# and 4&)#+,)%3#, act as spatial metaphors o )*+#,*-$.. 1heir
theoretical potential will unold through a journey into literary reerences. 1he aim o these three elements
is to exempliy the practical dimension o )*+#,*-$., rather than giing an exhaustie explanation o them.
1heir alue is to act as interpretatie categories o the dierent possible spaces o encounter among die-
rences.
1he /-+.#+, the 2%+3$# and the 4&)#+,)%3#, encompass a combination o spaces and practices. lor example /-+.#+
reers to the thick space at the margin between two dierent spaces while 2%+3$# is more related to a practice,
or example as the space that is created when a particular ritual is perormed. 4&)#+,)%3#, is again a space, or a
network o spaces, where an alternatie ision oer urban space is created through dwelling.
By creating occasions o encounter among dierences, ,563#, -7 )*+#,*-$. unold their transormatie poten-
tial through the act o dwelling.
/-+.#+- )*# 52&# 23 %&)#1+0)%2& +62&' ,%33#1#&0#.
1he Frst element o the spaces o )*+#,*-$. discussed here is /-+.#+. 1he argument builds upon Clement`s
isualization o the /-+.#+ as a thick space: 1hink to the borders as a thickness, rather than as a line. 1hink
to the margin as a Feld o research on the richness that arise rom the encounter o dierent enironments`
,Clement, 2004: 62,. 1he nature o this space is urther explored by Zanini ,199, in his 8#6&%&' -7 )*# 9-+0
.#+, where he underlines that there is a substantial dierence between border and rontier: border means
a common limit, a separation between contiguous spaces. It is also a way in which to paciFcally deFne the
property right o eeryone in a contested territory. Instead the rontier represents the end o the land, the
araway limit to enture out o which means to go beyond superstition against Gods` will, beyond what is
air and admitted, towards the unknowable that would hae set o their eny.` Crossing the rontier me-
ans to leae behind what is known, amiliar and reassuring towards the unknown and the uncertain. 1his
passage, to go beyond the rontier, also transorms the character o an indiidual: beyond it one becomes
stranger, emigrant, dierent not only to others, but also to onesel. And not always to go back to the starting
point makes us Fnd eerything that we had let` ,Zanini, 199: 10-11,. I the border is a Fxed space, an
established reerence, a stable and absolute line`, with a strong and straight oreword character, the rontier
is the space where dierences meet and innuence each other in the process o transorming social identities.
1he rontier is unstable, in continuous transormation and eolution. 1o dwell the )*+#,*-$., thereore, means
to dwell and build this third space whose centre passes within it and within us to become men o border
ourseles` ,ibid.: 14,.
2%+3$#- )*# 7./+0# 23 /$+89 +. + 0+)+$8.) 321 #&024&)#1
1he second element o spaces o )*+#,*-$. unolded is 2%+3$#. It is through what De Cauter and Dehaene
deFne as space o play` ,De Cauter and Dehaene, 2008, that it is possible to explore the )*+#,*-$. dimension
o the transient moment` o the perormance and the eent as a catalyst or encounter among dierences.
In the same way in which *#)#+-)-5%6, interrupt the continuity o space, public perormances and eents
interrupt the continuity o time. \e consider )*+#,*-$. to be a space where luizinga`s ,1938, homo ludens`
can meet the Other, the stranger.
Planum. 1he Journal o Urbanism | Conerence Proceedings 14 | 1
luizinga`s interpretation o play deFnes it as closely related to space: the act o playing not only creates
space, but also requires a space and a time entirely o its own. 1he magic !"#$%& is the basic spatial gesture that
deFnes the space o play` ,luizinga, 1938: 10, 20-1,. It is a '(#&)(*%+, . '&/&0*), in the sense that it is a cut-
out, a space set aside rom the common` abric o the world.` It creates a distinction between who is inside
and who is outside the !"#$%&, and requires some sort o initiation into the rules o the game` ,De Cauter
and Dehaene, 2008: 95-6,. 1he act o playing has the capacity to create a sense o community. 1he space
o play`, the space inside the magic Circle, can be described, using Victor 1urner`s term, as a liminal space:
a space that, in its ormal separation rom the rest o the world, presents a realm o instability and possibi-
lity. 1hat space which is seedbed o culture, its condition and possibility -rom ritual to theatre- proides a
clearing within the conentional order o society, sheltered rom the normalizing orces o the eeryday`
,1urner, 1982: 20-60,. 1he space o play` becomes threshold, thereore rontier or transormation, when
the identities that take part to it are open and their boundaries are nexible, and, as long as the rules o the
game are respected, dwelling the !"#$%& has the magic potential o creating social and cultural transormation.
10'&#'"$&)! #$%&'()*+, -$ ./$$)%)*+ ,0&+/&1 -%.)%,2
1he third and Fnal metaphor o '(#&)(*%+ are 10'&#)'"$&). \hat is particularly releant is their heterotopian di-
mension as ragments o dierent possible spatial orders` ,Cenzatti, 2008: 5,. 1he notion o 10'&#)'"$&) can
be drawn starting rom Clement`s conceptualisation o 1hird landscape` ,Clement, 2004,. 1he third lan-
dscape` reers to a spatiality composed o undecided spaces, without unction, which are uneasy to name`,
that are situated at the margins`. Clement isualises them as residues, deriing rom the abandon o an
actiity` ,ibid: 18,. lrom their biological dimension as ragments o landscape that constitute a territory o
reuge or diersity` ,ibid: 10,, residues gain the political dimension o representing a shared ragment o
collectie consciousness` ,ibid: 26,.
1he biological and physical dimension o Clement`s residues, meets the philosophical and cultural notion o
Deleuze and Guattari`s rhizomes. Rhizome is an a-centred, non-hierarchical, non-signiying system without
a General and without an organising memory or central automaton, deFned solely by a circulation o states`
,Deleuze and Guattari, 1988: 23,. \hat is important in a rhizome is neither the beginning nor the end, but
what is in the middle: coming and going, rather than starting and Fnishing`. A rhizome has no beginning
or end, it is always in the middle, between things, inter-being, intermezzo.`,ibid: 2,
\hat unites residues, as undecided ragments, and rhizomes, as connected, heterogeneous, multiple seg-
ments, into the notion o 10'&#)'"$&) is their '(#&)(*%+ capacity to reuge dierences and to create non-hierar-
chical, a-centered spaces o encounter in-between other things. 10'&#)'"$&) represent spaces where inormal
practices are the expression o the potential o cities to deend cultural dierence in the production o the
urban space, through a process o recognition and inclusion.
#34)11 +5) 65%),5-1.27 6-4&%., & 018%&1 &*. (81+/$&9)+). 8%:&* 981+8%)7
\hat is the role o space in the potential emancipating transormation o society embedded in the act o
the encounter with Otherness is the central issue this paper has explored. Starting rom Lacan`s concept
o Alienation to describe, in psycho-analytical terms, the Feld o non-meaning` substantiating the rela-
tionship between the Sel and the Other, and translating it into spatial terms through loucault`s (&'&#*'*2".),
'(#&)(*%+) become the spatial reerence deeloped as condition o possibilities or the a real conrontation o
meanings perormed through the act o dwelling. By dwelling the 3*#+&#, the !"#$%& and the 10'&#)'"$&) o the
4&)2.$&) .5'#&)6, it is possible to reormulate the relation between the Sel and the Other and to create space
or new, hybrid identities deriing rom the encounter. lybridity in this sense has the potential to oercome
stereotypes and static hierarchies among dierent entities towards the creation o a plural, multiaceted
urban culture.
Planum. 1he Journal o Urbanism | Conerence Proceedings 15 | 1
!"#"$"%&"'
Bhabha l., ,1994, 1be ocatiov of Cvttvre. ovaov, 1urnaround, Routledge.
Bhabha l., ,1988, 1be Covvitvevt to 1beor, - New lormations Number 5 Summer I 988
Cenzatti M., ,2008, eterotoia. of Differevce, in leterotopia and the City: Public space in a post ciil society.
Dehaene, M. & De Cauter, L. Oxon: Routledge
Clement G., ,2004, Mavife.t av 1ier. a,.age, Lditions Sujet,Objet, Quodlibet
De Cauter L., ,2004, 1be Ca.vtar Ciritiatiov. Ov tbe Cit, iv tbe .ge of ear, Rotterdam, Nai Publishers.
De Cauter L., Dehaene, M., ,2008, 1be .ace of Pta, in eterotoia ava tbe Cit,: Pvbtic .ace iv a o.t cirit .ociet,.
Dehaene, M. & De Cauter, L. Oxon: Routledge
Deleuze G., and Guattari, l., ,1988, vtroavctiov: Rb,ove iv . 1bov.ava Ptateav, London: Athlone Press
Dolar M., ,2012, Ove airiae. ivto 1ro vbti.bea iv tbe ovtive ;ovrvat fv, 433, 03,2012
loucault M., ,199, Of otber .ace.: |toia. ava eterotoia. iv Retbiv/ivg .rcbitectvre. London, Neil Leach
Routledge.
loucault M., ,19, 1be Covfe..iov of tbe te.b, In Power,Knowledge Selected Interiews and Other \ritings
- interiew.
Genocchio B., ,1995, Di.covr.e, Di.covtivvit,, Dierence: 1he Question o Other Spaces`` in \atson S., Gib-
son K., ,ed.,: Postmodern cities. Oxord and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
larries K., ,199, 1be tbicat vvctiov of .rcbitectvre, Cambridge, Mass. MI1 Press.
leidegger M., ,191, vitaivg Drettivg 1biv/ivg, in Poetry, Language, 1hought. New \ork, Albert lostadter
larper Colophon Books.
loughton Minin Company, ,200,, 1be .vericav eritage Medical Dictionary Copyright Published by
loughton Minin Company
luizinga J., ,1938, ovo vaev.: . tva, of tbe Pta, tevevt iv Cvttvre. Boston, Beacon Press.
Lacan J., ,193, 1be ovr vvaavevtat Covcet. of P.,cboavat,.i. Co c !,vav ta., Berkshire, Reading.
Leebre l., ,1991, 1be Proavctiov of ace, Blackwell.
Leebre l.,,190, a rerotvtiov vrbaive Pari.: Cattivara, Collection Ides`.
Luke C., and Luke A., ,1999, 1beoriivg ivterraciat favitie. ava b,bria iaevtit,: av .v.tratiav er.ectire, Lducational
1heory, ol 42, n.2, Uniersity o Illinois.
Rutherord J., ,1998, 1be 1bira ace. Interiew with lomi Bhabha. Identity: Community, Culture, Dieren-
ce. London, Lawrence & \ishart.
Sibley D., ,1995, Ceograbie. of ctv.iov, London, Routledge.
Simmel G., ,1994,, riage ava Door iv Retbiv/ivg .rcbitectvre ovaov, Neil Leach Routledge.
Soja L., ,1996,, 1bira.ace: ]ovrve,. to o. .vgete. ava Otber Reatavavagivea Ptace.. Oxord, Basil Blackwell.
Starides S., ,2006, eterotoia. c tbe eerievce of orov. |rbav ace, in Loose Space: Possibility and Diersity
in Urban Lie. Routledge.
Starides S., ,2010, 1orara. tbe Cit, of 1bre.bota. Creatire Covvov., Proessional Dreamers.
1urner V., ,1969, 1be Ritvat Proce..: trvctvre ava .vtitrvctvre, Penguin.
Van Gennep A., ,19, 1be Rite. of Pa..age. ovaov, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
\oung I., ,1990, ]v.tice ava tbe Potitic. of Differevce, Princeton, N.J, Princeton Uniersity Press.
Zanini P., ,199, igvifcati aet Covfve. tiviti vatvrati, .torici, vevtati. Milano, Bruno Mondadori.