Guest editorials

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1999, volume 17, page* 253 - 260

Guest editorials

Between the woof and the weft: a response to Loretta Lecs(i* Like Lorcttn Lees, I often yearn for intellectual discussion that is open to, and inclusive of, diverse contributions, rather than forms that exclude and marginalise some in the aggrandisement of others. This yearning entails an act of imagination, which, I would argue, has been made possible in part by feminist critiques of dominant forms of academic knowledge, and here again there is some common ground between myself and Lees. But, adopting a very widely used device in academic debate, I want to follow these points of connection by sketching out a series of doubts I have about Lees's argument. In short, while there is a good deal in the spirit of Lees's account to which I am sympathetic, I think she tends to 'bark up the wrong trees'. I discuss some general issues concerning the production of academic knowledge before focusing on the topic of gentrification in particular. Lees identifies the gatekeeping role of journal editors as a key means through which the fabric woven by academic discourse, including that concerned with gentrification, is maintained intact. As I will elaborate in due course, I am not convinced that journal editors arc quite as important as Lees implies, but, even if they are, her account of the book review process (and by implication the process of refcrccing manuscripts) is wide of the mark. The reviewing of books and the refcreeing of manuscripts arc activities valued little if at all in the various systems of measuring academic output under which most of us labour, whether in the form of the tenure system or the British Research Assessment Exercise. Consequently, journal editors rely upon a largely unrewarded and increasingly squeezed commitment to an ill-defined 'academic community5 on the part of the individuals they enlist. Reviewers and referees are drawn from the ranks of the willing and I could (but won't) name a few very senior academics who do not belong to that group. There are many more, myself included, who show willing some of the time but who often deliver late or who periodically plead that they are temporarily too overburdened. The journal that I edit—Gender, Place and Culture—has found that postgraduate researchers or those in junior positions are often the most reliable as well as the most interesting book reviewers. This may be a good way of incorporating new voices, but it might equally be viewed as a form of exploitation. Of course Gender, Place and Culture may be an unusual journal. I have certainly found my work as journal editor a deeply contradictory, as well as rewarding, process. Committed to critiques of 'mainstream' geography, the journal endeavours to open up spaces for contributors who might be excluded elsewhere. But it does so within the conventions of manuscript review through which some academic conventions are upheld, even if others are not. This may rework the boundaries of academic knowledge to some extent, but it is akin to modifying the shape or the texture of the cloth woven through academic discourse rather than abandoning weaving altogether. Put another way, those who publish in Gender, Place and Culture may well wish to contribute to the (1) I was originally invited, along with Damaris Rose and Neil Smith, to respond to Loretta Lees's guest editorial. In the end I wrote a short piece on which both of them commented. I'd like to thank them for their input. Some readers may be aware that Loretta and I have worked as coauthors and that our coauthorship grew out of Loretta's PhD, for which I served as supervisor. This particular exchange seems to me to symbolise the completion of our transition from one kind of relationship—that of student and supervisor—to another—that of colleagues—and I would like to thank her for all the ways in which she has made that possible.

254

Guest editorials

health of feminist geography but they are also (nearly all) wanting to contribute to their own CVs. And Gender, Place and Culture is not, in practice, so unusual. Many academic journals, including Society and Space, depend upon negotiating similar tensions between upholding academic conventions and offering spaces in which those conventions can be criticised, challenged, and displaced. It seems to me that the gatekeeping activities of journal editors constitute small threads that can be tugged in potentially productive ways, maybe warping the cloth academics weave, but in themselves they can neither unravel nor completely redesign that cloth. A wide variety of tropes have been deployed in efforts to write both with and against academic conventions, including those of margins and marginality, which have sometimes been enormously powerful in problematising and unsettling what is understood to be central (hooks, 1984, has become a classic example). But these tropes sometimes merely reinscribe familiar positions. I think this is precisely what Lees does in relation to feminist work in urban studies. By arguing for more to be done to ensure that feminist voices are included within the field of gentrification she simply reproduces a framing in which feminist work inhabits the margins whereas 'gentrification-as-we-know-it' exists in the centre ground. For example she argues that "Within gentrification studies, the work of female academics has concentrated on questions of gender to the exclusion of other aspects of this phenomenon" (1999, page 127). By isolating questions of gender, by attributing to gender the capacity to exclude other (more important?) things, and by suggesting it constitutes 'women's (academic) work', Lees actually constructs feminist geography as a very particular kind of ghetto. Against this, within and beyond work on gentrification, feminist academics have insisted that issues of gender and sexuality cannot be isolated from others but need to be integral to our theories about the world. Moreover, the assumption that women who work on gentrification have only looked at gender dimensions is certainly wide of the mark: think, for example, of the work of Sharon Zukin (1982; 1998) and Damaris Rose (1996), and, ironically, of Lees's own contributions (1994a; 1994b; 1996). So although I share Lees's interest in the subtle ways in which particular voices are marginalised, I prefer other stories that articulate more carefully the complex interplay between academic traditions, political agendas, and gender identities. In my own case, a feminist perspective has entailed foregrounding gender issues in relation to gentrification. But in practice my research was not really inspired by debates about gentrification. From my current vantage point I would identify two particular prompts. Conceptually, I was influenced by feminist accounts of the dynamic interconnections between the spatial organisations of the built environment and the social relations of class and gender, including especially the work of Suzanne Mackenzie (1988; 1989; Mackenzie and Rose, 1983). I wanted to see whether the reorganisation of urban space manifest in gentrification might be related to reworkings of (classspecific) gender identities (see Bondi, 1991, for the original conceptualisation and Bondi, 1999, for the result. Damaris Rose's work on gentrification was also very significant, especially Rose, 1989). I was also dealing with unresolved anxieties associated with a previous research project in which I had interviewed people in working-class areas. In that project I had hoped to understand more fully, and therefore to inform, political processes that repeatedly tended to exclude working-class voices, but I ended up finding myself deeply discomforted by being unable to avoid raising the expectations of those I interviewed in ways I knew that I could not fulfil. Interviewing gentrifiers seemed to be a safer prospect. One consequence of this understanding of my own motivations means that I am not convinced that the issues Lees raises really have much to do with a community of researchers interested in gentrification. But more significantly, I wonder if a decline in

Guest editorials

255

academic work on gentrification might actually be a sign of good health. To elaborate, I would argue that creative approaches to the production of academic knowledge entail cyclical processes of conceptualisation and rcconceptualisatiom In this context, Ruth Glass's (1964) coining of the term 'gcnlrificution' opened up new questions about urban change. But the more researchers have attempted to pin it down the more burdens the concept has had to carry. Maybe the loss of momentum around gcntrification reflects its inability to open up new insights, and maybe it is time to allow it to disintegrate under the weight of these burdens. By suggesting this I may be at risk of undercutting my own study of gcntrification presented in an article in this issue of Society and Space. But that nicely illustrates my desire to move between deploying and challenging the woof and the weft of academic conventions, whether in the context of research on gentrification or via my practice as a journal editor. Sometimes I am likely to drop the shuttle but that is surely a risk worth taking. Liz Bondi References Bondi L, 1991, "Gender divisions and gcntrification" Ihmsactions ofthe Institute of British Geographers 16 190 -198 Bondi L, 1999,"Gender, class, and gentrification: enriching the debate'* Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17 261 - 282 Glass R, 1964 London: Aspects of Change (MacGibbon and Kcc, St Albans, Herts) hooks b, 1984 Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (South End Press, Boston, MA) Lees L, 1994a, "Rethinking gcntrification: beyond the positions of economics or culture" Progress in Human Geography 18 137 - 150 Lees L, 1994b, "Gentrification in London and New York: an Atlantic gap?" Homing Studies1) 199-219 Lees L, I996,"ln pursuit of difference: representations of gcntrification" Environment and Planning A 28 453-470 Lccs L, 1999, "Guest editorial" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17 127-132 Mackenzie S, 1988, "Building women, building cities: toward gender sensitive theory in the environmental disciplines", in Life Spaces. Gender, Household, Environment Eds C Andrew, B Moore Milroy (University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver) pp 13-30 Mackenzie S, 1989, "Restructuring the relations of work and life: women as environmental actors, feminism as geographic analysis", in Remaking Human Geography Eds A Kobayashi, S Mackenzie (Unwin Hyman, Boston, MA) pp 40-61 Mackenzie S, Rose D, 1983, "Industrial change, the domestic economy and home life", in Redundant Spaces in Cities and Regions Eds J Anderson, S Duncan, R Hudson (Academic Press, London) pp 155-200 Rose D, 1989, "A feminist perspective of employment restructuring and gcntrification: the case of Montreal", in The Power of Geography Eds J Wolch, M Dear (Unwin Hyman, Boston, MA), pp 118-138 Rose D, 1996, "Economic restructuring and diversification of gentrification in the 1980s: a view from a marginal metropolis", in City Lives and City Forms: Critical Research and Canadian Urbanism Eds J Caulfield, L Peake (Toronto University Press, Toronto) pp 131 - 172 Zukin S, 1982 Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change (Hutchinson, London) Zukin S, 1998, "Urban lifestyles: diversity and standardisation in spaces of consumption" Urban Studies 35 825-839 Warping the cloth that academics weave: a reply to Bondi (and Rose and Smith) I would like to thank Liz Bondi (and her communicants, Damaris Rose and Neil Smith) for responding to my recent editorial. I would also like to take this opportunity to reply, albeit briefly. Initially I was rather taken aback by the fact that several senior academics h a d been invited to reply to the editorial before it appeared in print. I found it ironic given my particular discussion of the politics of knowledge production. However, I think that this has enabled a valuable exchange—thanks to Gerry Pratt.

256

Guest editorials

My first reaction to the written response was "what is it about gentrification that brings out the metaphors in us?", what with blind men and elephants, the woof and the weft, and dogs barking up trees. Metaphors aside, I think I'm barking up the right trees. Moreover, I think that there is much more common ground between my own views and those of the respondents than "Between the woof and the weft" suggests. I agree with Bondi that reviewing books and refereeing manuscripts are activities valued little, at least formally, in terms of 'academic output'. I have not suggested otherwise. What I do argue is that book reviewing and manuscript refereeing are important vehicles through which status in the discipline of geography is produced and represented. As such, the identity (in terms of gender and career stage, etc) of the reviewers is important and should not be understated, for it plays a not insignificant role in the construction both of academic careers and of subdisciplinary discourses such as that of gentrification. To look only at formal rewards for the reviewer is to miss both the informal rewards (which are often much greater) and the wider disciplinary power of refereeing. Surely if Foucault taught us anything it was that the kind of power exerted by these disciplinary practices is not a sovereign power wielded by individuals, but a diffuse and disciplinary power that is exercised through the internalisation of certain norms and practices that go unquestioned. Book and manuscript reviewing may not be recognised formally, in terms of immediate quid pro quo reward, but refereeing and reviewing are the principal practices by which status within the discipline is recognised and reproduced. Indeed, what is the British RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) if not a giant departmental-scale reviewing process in which certain people are called upon to serve as the arbiters of excellence within the discipline on which resources and reputations depend. The productive power of refereeing can be demonstrated with reference to my recent editorial. The editorial evolved from a larger piece which tried to marry a discussion of the politics of academic knowledge production to a wider critique of the gentrification literature, but at the insistence of referees this critique was shorn from the wider paper, leaving the editorial which appeared in Society and Space. Perhaps the result is for the best. Perhaps also the referees will not have received formal credit for their influential role in producing the outcome, but this makes the power of the practice no less real. In the university world where careers are crafted from the fragile tissue of personal reputation, you are often what people say of you. Even the formal output measures (publications, grant proposals, etc) are themselves the products of a peer reviewing process. Likewise, wider structures of promotion almost always involve refereeing. As academics we are perpetually called upon to review and report on each other. Probably, there is no other way to assure quality in what remains, thankfully, a highly informal and communal system of academic knowledge production. The experience with the RAE and other formalised and thus inevitably reductionist means of assessing academic quality reminds me of the advantages of the present system. At the same time, however, we need to be reflexive about the power relations involved. My editorial was intended to call attention to this perhaps inescapable tension. I am in agreement with Bondi that feminist geographers do not concentrate on questions of gender to the exclusion of other aspects of gentrification. I wrote "to the relative exclusion of other aspects" (1999, page 128, emphasis added). Bondi must have received the unedited version of my editorial. I was trying to illustrate what Bondi herself argues—that she (like many, but not all, female authors on gentrification) came to study gentrification through her interest in feminist accounts of urban space. Further, I accept Bondi's claim that I construct feminist geography in urban studies as a particular kind of ghetto and that discussions of marginality often unavoidably (re)inscribe marginality. Marginality is a double-edged sword. Sheltered from the

Guest editorials

257

currents of 'mainstream* geography, a vibrant feminist community has grown up within the discipline with its own norms and publishing outlets such as Gender. Place and Culture, which has created a space for the development of specifically feminist viewpoints, conversations, and styles of writing. There is a danger, though, that female geographers get typecast as geographers who only research and teach gender, that "women's (academic) work" is gender. This has certainly happened to me, and I find it irritating because gender is not a principal research interest of mine. Although feminist geography has been at the forefront of attempts to emphasise the cross-cutting nature of gender, sexuality, class, race, ethnicity, etc [see Ruth Fincher and Jane Jacobs1 excellent edited collection Cities of Difference (1998)], it often voices these ideas within its own networks and thus talks to the already 'converted'. My editorial was a call to fracture the boundaries of relatively exclusive research and of knowledge communities, to make these communities more inclusive (sec pages 130- 131). In conclusion, in order to know which small threads of the cloth to tug in "potentially productive ways", as Bondi suggests, we need to have a firm grasp of the structure and/or texture of the cloth first. We have learned much from the various deconstructions of the discipline of geography about the ways in which knowledges and discourses are produced (see, for example, Domosh, 1991a; 1991b; Rose, 1993). In my editorial I set out to think about the production of knowledge on gcntrification, about the weaving of gentrification discourse, a topic I became interested in whilst reviewing Neil Smith's and Tim Butler's recent books (Lees, 1998). Unlike Bondi I do not feci that it is time to let gentrification research "disintegrate under the weight of these burdens." The process of gentrification continues today in cities around the world, displacing and socially excluding certain segments of the population. I would suggest, however, that what is happening today is perhaps somewhat different to what Ruth Glass described in the 1960s. There arc new insights to be gained from further research. In thinking about how gentrification knowledge has been produced I was kickstarting my own motor, and I hope, the motors of others. Loretta Lees References Domosh M, 1991a, "Toward a feminist historiography of geography" Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 16 95-104 Domosh M, 1991b, "Beyond the frontiers of geographical knowledge" Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 16 488-490 Fincher R, Jacobs J (Eds), 1998 Cities of Difference (Guilford Press, New York) Lees L, 1998, Reviews of The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City by N Smith and Gentrification and the Middle Classes by T Butler, in Environment and Planning A 30 2257-2260 Lees L, 1999, "The weaving of gentrification discourse and the boundaries of the gentrification community", guest editorial Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17 127-132 Rose G, 1993 Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge (Polity Press, Cambridge) Situating cultural twists and turns Clive Barnett's (1998a) recent editorial in this journal is a welcome and thoughtprovoking critique of human geography's 'cultural turn'. It is not the first of course— one thinks of Sayer's (1994) rather blunt reminder that the 'economy matters' or Neil Smith's (1996) cutting parody "Rethinking sleep"—but it is arguably the most subtle and sophisticated to grace the recent pages of Society and Space. Negotiating what he elsewhere (Barnett, 1998b, page 382) calls "the small space that separates that alltoo-easy dismissal of new intellectual trends from the equally easy uncritical embrace

258

Guest editorials

of them", Barnett presents the considered view of someone who has been socialised into and contributed to the intellectual developments he is scrutinising. Accordingly, his piece highlights the tensions and ambivalences of these developments in order to suggest a fruitful way forward for the many geographers who have embraced the cultural turn. However, in his eagerness to offer a subtle and layered interpretation of geography's new obsession with culture Barnett arguably attenuates some important points or else fails to fully follow through some of his own arguments. In particular, I want to suggest that he only gestures towards the "fully materialist analysis of the institution of theory"—as he has called it in a critique of Derek Gregory's (1994) Geographical Imaginations (Barnett, 1995, page 427)—that is necessary to make sense of the nature and implications of culture's current hegemony on the critical Left of human geography. Barnett is a rather elliptical writer so I hope he'll forgive me for summarising starkly what I take his argument to be. The context for his intervention is what he sees as the relative lack of self-reflection among culturally inclined geographers about the origins and nature of the 'turn' they are involved in. The actual argument is twofold, involving critique and reformulation. The critique consists of the claim that many geographers have embraced uncritically an amorphous, ill-defined, and promiscuous notion of 'culture' while hollowing out and trivialising what makes culture 'political'. As he puts it "The distinctive lack of conceptual specificity about the specificity designated by culture helps to account for the easy coupling of the cultural with the geographical, in which both come to refer to a general sensitivity to issues of context, difference, and the local. Both the cultural and the geographical surreptitiously take on self-evident explanatory value as names for all that is essentially residual to more general patterns and processes" (1998a, page 631). Barnett (page 632-633) therefore calls for a more grounded, embedded, and specific notion of culture and its geographies "which, first, traces the particular formations of the cultural in different institutional situations and, second, examines how these formations of culture are associated with strategies aimed at the extension of distinctive forms of social regulation into the fabric of everyday life." In turn, this reformulation might feed into a more discriminating and less voluntarist conception of 'cultural politics' where the presumption would not be that "each and every detail of everyday life is infused with political meaning" (page 634). These are, I think, fair points and ones many readers of Society and Space might concur with. But they can also be taken further. What is so subversive about Barnett's reformulation of the culture-geography-politics nexus is that it not only concerns culture and its politics as objects of 'real-world' geographical analysis but also the cultural turn itself. In other words, he intimates that geography's embrace of a peculiarly abstract, residual, and ill-defined notion of culture correlates with, and perhaps even serves as an alibi for, a lack of disciplinary self-reflection on why and with what consequences such a conception has taken hold this last decade or so. Deploying his own institutionally embedded and variegated notion of the cultural, Barnett makes the interesting and provocative suggestion that geography's cultural turn can be seen as a new form of disciplining subjects. This is not quite as sinister as it sounds but it is consequential. If I understand him correctly, Barnett's point is twofold. First, the institutional specificities of geography as an academic subject—in particular the postwar dominance of 'technical' and supposedly 'objective' knowledge a la spatial science and its various quantitative and analytical offshoots—mean that many 1990s geographers have been disposed towards cultural methodologies that unsettle these previously dominant ways of knowing. Second, though, this "repertoire of cultural methodologies ... [is itself] historically implicated in distinctive practices for the administration and transformation of human subjectivities. These 'new' approaches are associated with

Guest editorials

259

their own regimes of truth, knowledge and power" (page 634), In itself this fact is not necessarily problematic* of course* as much depends on the specific moifolitien of subject administration and transformation. But it is here that Harnett makes his discomfort with geography's particular appropriation of 'the cultural* clearest of all; "The more an undifferentiated potpourri of methods and sensibilities ('reading*, 'interpretation*, 'poetics', 'reflcxivity*) are recommended as the primary route to cultivating a 'critical* perspective, the more one begins to suspect that there is a quite traditional scene of aesthetic subject formation implied by the disciplinary embrace of essentially humanistic vocabularies of culture and criticism. This supports an abstract construction of education as a practice for transforming subjective consciousness in the interests of liberty, emancipation or enlightenment which in turn transforms polities into an act of ethical will... helped along by a parade of.cxemplary teacher-writers" (page 633). Whether or not one concurs with this particular argument (personally I think Barnctt is onto something important here), the injunction to situate institutionally geography's cultural turn is very well taken. But Barnctt makes only the most oblique references to what, precisely, is going on in the academy to make cultural studies in general, and the cultural in geography specifically, such enormous growth areas. Elsewhere (Barnctt, 1998b; Barnctt and Low, 1996) he has been more explicit, focussing on the 'Routlcdgc phenomena* and the new power of commercial academic publishing. Rejecting "the empty claim that new intellectual trends arc merely the products of the logic of capitalist profitability" (Barnctt, 1998b, page 384) he notes the ambivalent potential of cultural studies* strong showing in the lists of academic mcgapublishcrs. On the one hand, by circumventing the regulations of academic journals—which tend to 'play safe* and gatekecp viz new academic trends—Routledgc and similar publishers have allowed the new ideas and approaches associated with the cultural turn to rapidly and aggressively upset established disciplinary frameworks. Nonetheless, Barnctt also recognises that cultural studies within geography and without is an "accumulation strategy" (page 385), insofar as /theoretical innovation and niche marketing is the key to profitability for the publishers soliciting new manuscripts and book proposals. But, as Barnett knows, there is far more going on than this. What follows is an incitement—doubtless a very British one—to follow and extend Barnett's lead by listing those processes and practices that ought to be considered in a 'fully materialist analysis' of the institution of cultural theory and research in geography. First, there is the state and its relation to academics. Working, as I do, within the UK tertiary system it is hard not to be struck by the massive influence of state higher education policy this last fifteen years in encouraging ever-accelerating innovation in research. Through the Research Assessment Exercise and other disciplinary mechanisms, successive UK governments have encouraged a competitive scramble between individual academics and whole departments to publish or perish. It's not just that all this coincides with the rapid rise of cultural studies, the displacement of older academic perspectives, and the aggressive commercialisation of cultural studies that Barnett highlights. In addition, there is the as yet unexplored question of how the state's interpellation of geographers and other academics as 'sovereign individuals' with their own ideas and intellectual property rights (as if academia were not an inherently collective endeavour) feeds into the culture (in the literal sense) of research and teaching to which Barnett objects. Second, there is the question of the relationship of the state and academics to student constituencies. In recent years, countries such as the United Kingdom and the USA have placed a priority on education for work. In a globalised and hypercompetitive economy, universities are being asked to produce either vocationally 'trained' graduates or, failing that, general arts/humanities/socialsciences graduates equipped with core transferable skills (CTSs). This may seem a

260

Guest editorials

long way from the cultural turn in geography and elsewhere. But there is a striking coincidence between the pedagogic model of the exemplary cultural studies intellectual (and, with Barnett, I note the academic 'star system' associated with the field) and the "abstract construction of education as a practice for transforming subjective consciousness" which Barnett dissents from. Though hardly 'practical' knowledge in the instrumental and vocational sense of the word, is there a direct relationship between the popularity of cultural studies courses in geography and beyond and a rather traditional state-led project of educating 'suitable' subjects for the world of work? la other words, though the cultural turn has served to introduce new modalities of knowledge into geography and other disciplines, are these modalities being merely coopted into a well-established pedagogic model in which teachers 'instruct' students in what, for the state and business, are the desirable arts of clear thinking, problem salving, clear speaking, coherent writing, and other CTSs? Lest all this sound like the cultural turn is no more than academic neoconservatism in a particularly cunning guise, let me end, thirdly, by pointing to one other factor that impinges on geography's culturisation. Academics are not, of course, mere dupes of wider socioeconomic processes and, in my comments above, I hope I have not implied otherwise. Beyond the putatively 'external' pressures issuing from commercial publishing or the state, there is the 'internal' question of the sociology of academic change. la a recent essay, Keith Bassett (1996) has made a general plea for geographers to analyse more carefully the micropolitics of their discipline along the lines of Bourdieu and other analysts of academic structuration. This plea is well taken. If we are to understand fully the nature and implication of geography's cultural turn, and if the reformulation that Barnett suggests is actually to take hold, we surely need a more careful analysis of our own anthropology. This requires not broad-scale generalisations of the kind I have made here, but an empirical investigation of specific habituses arid particular networks of influence, patronage, hiring, and so on. That such an investigation remains to be done is, one hopes, an indication of the terrain on which future debates over geography's cultural turn will be based. Noel Castree References Barnett C, 1995, "Why theory?" Economic Geography 71 427-435 Barnett C, 1998a, "Cultural twists and turns" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 16 631-634 Barnett C, 1998b, "The cultural worm turns" Antipode 30 379-395 Barnett C, Low M, 1996, "Speculating on theory: towards a political economy of academic publishing" Area 28 13 - 24 Bassett K, 1996, "Postmodernism and the crisis of the intellectual: reflections on reflexivity, universities and the scientific field" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14 507-527 Gregory D, 1994 Geographical Imaginations (Blackwell, Oxford) Sayer A, 1994, "Cultural studies and 'the economy, stupid'" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12 635 - 637 Smith N, 1996, "Rethinking sleep" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14 505 - 506

p

© 1999 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain