5 Between Institutional Theory and Lefebvre

Sensemaking, Logics and Enactment of, and in, Space

Gili S. Drori and Briana Preminger

Introduction

The paradigmatic breach by institutional theory into the field of organization studies, which resulted in its current domination over macro-analyses of organizations, was predicated on its reorientation of the field towards social constructivism and cultural analysis. Indeed, institutional theory’s wide recognition is based on its reading of Weber, Schutz, Goffman, Berger and Luckmann, and on recasting their claims into a series of principles that emphasize, among other ideas, the centrality of symbolic systems, cultural scripts and discourse for institutionalization. Consequently, although institutions stand on regulative, normative and cognitive pillars and are formalized into structures, practices and behaviours, institutionalists devoted less attention to the material aspects of institutions. In other words, while institutionalists study formal aspects and structuration of organizations and empirically gauge such processes by a variety of organizational artifacts, the search for patterns of meaning obscured materiality. Most insistently, Friedland (2009: 24) declares that institutions have an “absent presence,” claiming that whereas institutions are widely acknowledged as social constructs, they present themselves in material practices imbued with symbolic meanings. Friedland’s call to make the invisible institutional substance visible (2009: 49) contributed to the recent “material turn” and “visual turn” in organization studies (see e.g., Carlile et al., 2013; Meyer et al., 2013; respectively). As summarized by Jones and Massa (2013: 1127):

The “material turn” and “visual turn” in organization studies, however recent they may be, are already most prolific and rapidly gaining momentum. Still, although institutionalists now recognize aesthetics as one of the “nascent threads of research that hold strong potential for bringing institutional theory back to its core assumptions and objectives” (Suddaby, 2010: 14), space and spatiality often remain neglected. In this respect, the reorientation of institutional theory towards aesthetics of organizations, which enables a return of the theory to its grand concerns, regarding rationality, actorhood, and the construction and diffusion of ideas and practices, continues, on the whole, to neglect the sociability and institutional foundations of space. The aim of this chapter is to begin a dialogue between Lefebvre’s theory of space and institutional theory, in order to expand discussions of materiality and specifically of spatiality.

This chapter is organized to start a dialogue between the Lefebvrian and institutionalist perspectives of space. Following a review of the recent turn of institutional theory towards materiality, visuality and multimodality, we expand on the need for including spatiality in institutional analyses. We then explore the parallels and the differences between the two perspectives, describing how the shared interest in material forms of social relations comes alongside an ontological divide between Lefebvrian and institutionalist perspectives of space. Building upon Lefebvre’s tradition of the study of space and spatiality, we proceed to articulate propositions for institutionalist analysis of social space. Such propositions are inspired by a Lefebvrian theory of space and still draw on the institutionalist concepts of logics, sensemaking, enactment, legitimacy and actorhood as social devices for the scripting and use of space. Such an institutionalist reading of space situates space not only as a social product, but rather as primarily an institutional sphere: space allows for regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive institutional dynamics to construct and then assign meaning to social life. Most importantly, through such spatialized meanings, social space guides the construction of social actors and social action. We suggest points of dialogue between Lefebvre-inspired and institutionalist explorations of space through the illustration of Jerusalem’s Western Wall.

Materiality and Visuality Turns in Institutional Theory of Organizations: Preamble to a “Spatiality Turn”

The 1970s emergence of neo-institutionalism, which transformed organization studies, was predicated on several core principles. These principles, periodically précised by Scott (1987; 2008; and lately, 2014), include an emphasis (a) on the centrality of symbolic systems and cultural scripts for institutionalization, (b) on coercive, normative, and mimetic processes of institutional reproduction, (c) on diffusion, adoption and adaptation of institutional scripts, and (d) on the authority of professionals, professionalized knowledge and knowledge transfer and translation. These institutionalist principles came as a response to the rationalist and materialist theories that dominated organization studies; institutionalism grew out of a critique of theories that regarded organizations as rational, bounded and autonomous entities, as ‘‘closed systems,” and as deliberative decision makers (see Krücken and Drori, 2009: 7–8; Scott, 2008, 2014). In that vein, foundational claims regarding ceremoniality and ritualistic isomorphism (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) expanded to emphases on the regulative, normative and cognitive pillars of institutions (Scott, 2014) and on the centrality of legitimacy as a social resource and strongly posit a cultural and constructivist viewpoint (Scott, 2008, 2014). This epistemic revolution of new institutionalism, which led it to become the strongest and most prolific paradigm in organization studies over the coming decades (see Greenwood et al., 2008; Greenwood, Lawrence, and Meyer, 2017), also caged new institutionalism in its own “institutional imperative” (Strang and Meyer, 1993: 495) of discursive analysis. As a result, institutions are noted to have an “absent presence” (Freidland, 2009: 24), meaning that the institution’s so-called substance “exceeds its attributes and cannot be reduced to a thing’s materiality” or other representations (Freidland, 2009: 41). As a result, until recently the institutionalist search for regulative, normative and cognitive patterns of meaning obscured, if not avoided, the materiality of institutions.

Over the past decade, when calls are made for the rejuvenation of institutional theory in light of its expansion and potential fragmentation, one such appeal is to turn its attention towards the materiality of organizational affairs. While heeding the linguistic turn and cultural turn in the social sciences and accentuating discursive aspects of organization, organizations and organizing (Alasuutari, 2015), the “material and visual dimensions of organizing tend to be absent or immaterial in the cognitive and cultural frameworks that dominate organizational theories” (Boxenbaum, Jones, Meyer and Svejenova, 2015: 133). Arguing for bringing matter back in, the compilation under the precise title “How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies” (Carlile, Nicolini, Langley and Tsoukas 2013) starts by revealing the neglect of matter in organization studies. The editors refer to Orlikowski and Scott (2008, in 2013: 2) and claim that 95% of articles in leading management journals do not consider technology as affecting organizational processes; they continue and cite Barad’s claim (2003: 801, in 2013: 2) that “Language matters. Discourse matters. Culture matters. There is an important sense in which the only thing that does not seem to matter anymore is matter.” And de Vaujany and Mitev (2013: 2) heed the same call, claiming that “organizational theory must perform a ‘spatial turn’ to incorporate the voluminous analysis of objects and everyday spatial practices.” Likewise, institutionalists identify the need for “bridging the current division of labour between studies of material and ideational aspects of institutionalization” (Zilber, 2007: 164). This is also relevant to the use of specific institutionalist concepts. For example, concerning institutional logics, “[w]hereas the more abstract aspects of institutional logics (i.e., cognitive, normative, and symbolic) have received ample attention in the literature, the material (practices) dimension has been surprisingly overlooked” (Jones, Boxenbaum, and Anthony, 2013: 52). As a result, discourse surpassed materiality.

Such a shortfall spurred the recent “materiality turn” (see Leonardi, Nardi, and Kalinikos, 2012) and subsequently the “visuality turn” and the “multimodality turn” in organization studies and among institutionalists (Meyer et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2017; respectively). These reorientations toward the various forms of matter—physical, visual, textual and any multimodal combination of these—share the commentary regarding materiality in general that ideas, values and norms have an embodied representation in artifacts, objects, instruments, technologies, bodies and space. These “turns,” which are somewhat disjointed from the 20-year-old research on organizational artifacts as symbolic signifiers (Pratt and Rafaeli, 1997), also share a post-discursive outlook, claiming that language is only one form of content and meaning representation and the primacy of language is related to modern definitions of what is understood to be valid knowledge (see de Vaujany and Mitev, 2015). Such a claim is most notably represented in the compilation by Carlile et al., 2013) and in de Vaujany and Mitev (2013). In expanding institutionalist analyses of organizations in the direction of visuality, researchers analysed visual images in corporate reports (Höllerer et al., 2013), visual displays and practices in study rooms (de Vaujany and Vaast, 2016), and organizational logos (Drori, Delmestri, and Oberg, 2016). These iconographies encapsulate and deliver “imageries of organizing” (Jones et al., 2017), thus allow for sensemaking and sense-giving for organizations and for processes of organizing.

And still in spite of these recent “turns,” space and spatiality remained largely overlooked by institutionalists. When analysed by institutionalists, space is conceived as a relational domain, professionalized domain, or a legitimation tool. First, much in line with the sociological approach to space (Löw, 2016), Kellogg’s (2009) study of the implementation of a regulative change in two hospitals exemplifies how small-scale settings configure micro-institutional processes. Specifically, “relational spaces,” where not only interaction but also inclusion occurs, drive relational mobilization, which constitutes opportunities for institutional change. In other respects, while institutionalists implicitly refer to space and spatiality as a defining dimension of an institutional field, hence recognizing that the web of relations that constitutes the field occupies a realm or social domain (see Scott, 2014: 232–234), such works focused primarily on matters of co-location or proximity, conceptualizing space as a matter of distance (see Bitner, 1992).

Second, as exemplified by Jones et al., 2012), space, much like other symbols and materials, is the outcome of a process of enactment by professional groups, struggling to mitigate the diverting institutional logics of their many constituents. Studying the emergence and theorization of the category “modern architecture” between 1870 and 1975, Jones and her colleagues “show that modern architecture,” like the buildings and spaces it designed and constructed, “was shaped, from its inception, by fights over logics based on distinct client sectors and serviced by different groups of architects who enacted “modern architecture” (2012: 1539).

Third and most dominantly, much of the institutionalist analysis of space focused specifically on legitimation. For example, based on analysis of the form and use of the buildings of Paris Dauphine University, which resides in the building that originally served as the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), de Vaujany and Vaast (2014) coin the concept of “spatial legacies” and find that “the building’s past—real or imagined—remains present in the thoughts and interactions of its current occupants” (2014: 725). Therefore, they conclude, while “space and organization [are] analytically distinct but interdependent” (de Vaujany and Vaast, 2014: 725), the spatial legacies construct and guide claims of legitimation by the organization and by its members. Likewise, Jones and Massa (2013), analysing Unity Temple by Frank Lloyd Wright in comparison with three other notable churches of the same period, note that “institutional evangelism” entangles space, institutional work and identity to gain legitimacy for novel ideas, or in this case also novel forms. They “demonstrate that when buildings engender identification, they become collective identity markers, spurring social actors to engage in institutional maintenance work to protect novel ideas and support the community instantiated by those novel ideas” (2013: 1101). In these institutionalist analyses of legitimacy and legitimation, space serves as an institutional carrier, imprinted by its social context and setting a context for institutional work: “Buildings embody the cultural meanings, material and technological practices, and identities of their time and place” (Jones and Massa, 2013: 1129).

Seeing institutional theory’s emphasis on meanings and their social construction, the mode by which such meanings are symbolized is critical for understanding institutional dynamics. Indeed, for ideas and practices to diffuse, they get theorized and encoded (see Strang and Meyer, 1993; Strang and Soule, 1998) into organization artifacts, also into spatial arrangements. Yet, in the few institutitonalist studies of space-related materiality of institutions there is little echo of Lefebvre’s (1991) iconic work. While discussions of space in organization theory draw heavily from Lefebvre’s work and while many critical analyses of organization followed in his path (see Dale, 2005; Taylor and Spicer, 2007; Kingma, 2008; Wasserman and Frenkel, 2011; Wasserman, 2012), institutional studies of materiality in general and of space in particular overlooked Lefebvre. Our claim, developed over the course of this chapter, is that engagement with Lefebvrian tradition affords institutionalism—even contemporary institutional schools, such as those concerned with institutional logics (see Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury, 2012) or institutional work (see Lawrence, Leca, and Zilber, 2013)—new paths for conceptual and empirical advances. Among such paths, two are particularly pertinent to the development of this chapter, which aims at linking institutional theory and Lefebvre’s theory of space.

The first is a call for institutional theory to take social power and interest under serious consideration and thus to study how might power asymmetries affect processes of institutionalization. Therefore, in spite of institutionalism’s constructivist and even phenomenological claims (see Meyer, 2010), still claims are made that “there are … limits to institutional theory’s powers of critical illumination” (Willmott, 2015: 105). Likewise, Suddaby (2015) criticizes institutional theory for drifting away from its critical origins, which challenged the then-hegemonic economic and functionalist thinking, to itself became hegemonic and “as a result, lost its theoretical reflexivity” (2015: 94). Second, recognizing that “physical symbols, objects and artifacts form an important but relatively unexplored element in the chains of activities that constitute institutional work” (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006: 245; see also Jones and Massa, 2013: 1103), institutionalism is at an exciting moment of a turn towards materiality and visuality and is primed also for acknowledgement of space as a unique yet complementary embodiment of institutions. In addition, institutionalist inroads into materiality and visuality, as well as the new work on space, are hopeful signals for identifying equilibrium between the materiality and discursivity of institutions and institutionalization. On both such accounts, institutionalist engagement with Lefebvrian tradition is potentially fruitful conceptually and empirically. The following section explores the links between institutionalism and Lefebvre, ontologically and specifically in regards to materiality and spatiality, with the goal of exploring common grounds and possibilities for cross-fertilization.

Between Institutionalism and Lefebvre

Lefebvre broke new grounds in social theory by placing space at the centre of social analysis. Lefebvre’s (1991; originally published in French in 1974) configuration of the conceived, perceived and lived spaces relies extensively on his neo-Marxist understandings and on the related emphasis on dynamics of power relations and interest-driven action (see Dale and Burrell, 2008). For Lefebvre, space is a reflection of relations of coercion, resistance and struggle. Lefebvrian theory of space also spurred a stream of empirical research in organization studies. Specifically, it inspired research on architecture as a power mechanism in various social sectors: entertainment (Kingma, 2008), academia (Hancock and Spicer, 2011; Peltonen, 2011), government (Wasserman, 2011; Wasserman and Frenkel, 2011) and international organizations (de Vaujany and Vaast, 2014). And such research identified the scheme for the ideal worker that is derived from such spatial arrangements, in terms of social class (Zhang and Spicer, 2013), production- or market role (Hancock and Spicer, 2011), gender category (Tyler and Cohen, 2010), or national identity (Wasserman, 2011) and thus identifies the spatiality of various social hierarchies. With this force, the philosophical essays of Lefebvre on space penetrated and influenced organization studies. How may this Lefebvrian tradition of analysing space and organization inform the recent turn in institutional theory toward the materiality of organizations? How may the concepts of “Lefebvrian space” and “institutional space” relate to each other? In the following sections, we explore the potential for interchange between Lefebvrian theories of space in organization and institutional theory of organizations.

Ontological Divides

The breakthrough of social studies of space—as a particular, however broad, aspect of materiality—drives us to study the common and divergent conceptual issues between Lefebvrian theories of space and institutional theory of organization. The ontology that is at the root of each of the two theories tracks each theory’s analysis of space and organization follows a unique path. Indeed, as described in the following section, Lefebvrian theory of space and institutionalism each offers a distinct definition for the social character of space, for what are the sought-after social resources (the “why?”), who are the social entities or parties engaged with and constituted by space (the “who?”) and what is the nature of the spatiality process (the “how?”). Table 5.1 herein summarizes the comparison of the theories’ distinct definitions and terminologies.

In a most fundamental way, Lefebvrian and institutionalist perspectives of space, while sharing the claim that space is essentially social, diverge on the definition of the underlying drive for social action. Lefebvrian analysis of space revolves around power and the reproduction of hegemonic status: “in the case of space, knowledge to be derived from analysis extends to the recognition of the conflicts internal to what on the surface appears homogeneous and coherent—and presents itself and behaves as though it were” (Lefebvre, 1991: 352). And while “space has no power ‘in itself,’ nor does space as such determine spatial contradictions” (1991: 358), the contradictions of society—between elite and proletariat, producers and consumers, haves and have-nots—“simply emerge in space, at the level of space, and so engender the contradictions of space” (1991: 358). Space is, therefore, a sphere of, and for, power relations and hierarchies (Dale and Burrell, 2008: 15). Institutionalists, on the other hand, draw heavily on Weberian emphasis on authority and the legitimation of power structures and on Berger and Luckmann’s description of legitimacy as a “second order” of meanings, which provides cultural support and scripts the justification for structures and action. Inspired by Geertz, institutionalists recast “muscular” power—often drawn from political, economic and technological capacities—as constituted by and transferred through cultural practices, ritual, and symbols. For example, de Vaujany and Vaast (2014: 728) show “how the characteristics and affordances of a space become intricately enmeshed not only with what people can do, but also with an organization’s legitimacy claims. More specifically, diverse organizational stakeholders may perceive a space differently and associate it with more or less persuasive legitimacy claims.” In these ways, legitimacy—distinct from the neo-Marxist concept of ideology—honours the embeddedness of action and of actors in a normative order and explains compliance and adherence as normative conformity and enactment—again distinct from a Lefebvrian reading of enactment (see Dale and Burrell, 2008).

Consequently, the two theoretical perspectives also diverge in their definition of the nature of social action and of social relations in and around space. From a Lefebvrian perspective,

Action—namely production and reproduction—is essential to a Lefebvrian understanding of space and such space-related action is described as segregating, exclusionary, and manipulating. This argument is loudly stated in all Lefebvrian-inspired research. For example, Kingma (2008: 46, 47) concludes, “the carefully designed divisions and variations in gambling areas within the casino facilitate a ‘culture of difference’” and “confinement … euphemizes and softens gambling experiences, to gambling as a form of commercial entertainment.” Likewise, Wasserman (2012: 21) concludes that

And, in the face of such segregation and coercion, come struggle and disruption, where “workers’ inter-subjective, deliberate and sometimes systematic attempts to transgress and ridicule management’s aesthetic messages using aesthetic jamming” (Wasserman and Frenkel, 2011: 518). Overall, Lefebvrian analysis highlights struggles over, and manipulation of, power that instigate coercion, exploitation, exclusion and resistance. Moreover, the directionality of exploitative and manipulative action is from the conceived to the lived and perceived spaces, while acts of resistance, transgression, sabotage, or compliance are directed from the perceived and lived spaces towards the conceived space.

Institutionalist analysis highlights institutional dynamics of sensemaking, translation, diffusion, enactment and isomorphism, which recursively co-constitute meaning and its materialized form (or, as emphasized in this discussion, spatialized form). Therefore, the formal regulative pillar of institutions that is embodied in the conceived space is co-constituted by, and constitutive of, the normative and cultural-cognitive pillars of institutions; likewise, policy is co-constitutive of practice. That said, on this issue of social action, institutionalists split: The pioneering institutionalists, who accept phenomenological assumptions, define the actor as an imagined social entity and actorhood as a script of modernist agency (Meyer and Jepperson, 2000; Drori, Meyer, and Hwang, 2009), while others pursue the concept of “institutional work,” attributing agency to individuals and organizations whose purposive labour creates, maintains, and disrupts institutions (Lawrence, Suddaby, and Leca, 2009; Lawrence, Leca, and Zilber, 2013). Furthering the agency school in institutional theory, Fligstein and McAdam (2011) define institutional fields as competitive arenas, emphasizing the differential power of institutional incumbents, and analysing the influence of challengers, who “[await] new opportunities to challenge the structure and logic of the system” (2011: 13). Overall, both institutionalist schools distinguish themselves from a neo-Marxist imagery of the social actor as rational, purposive and incentivized to pursue their goals. From this viewpoint, the actor, and actor’s behaviour in space, embodies knowledge and social conventions. Rather, drawing on Weberian ideas of social roles and on Goffmanian ideas regarding the scripted actor, institutionalists argue that the “cultural system constructs the modern actor as an authorized agent” (Meyer and Jepperson, 2000: 101) and define social actors as “carriers” and “translators” more than as social agents.

In these ways, the ontological divides along the fault-lines of power-legitimacy and production/reproduction-enactment/institutional work also translate into the fault-line of agent-actor. While the constructed and manipulated nature of social space “does not mean that people are complete ‘spatial dopes’” (Kingma: 2008: 46), some Lefebvrians nevertheless focus identity regulation, even of the body, by and through space. Wasserman and Frenkel, for example, reveal how workers interpret and disrupt the disciplining of behaviour and modes of thought that are conveyed through organizational aesthetics. Thus, while organizational aesthetics employ spatial terms to conceive of the image of the ideal worker, and while workers “located themselves in the organizational hierarchy in relation to this image” (Wasserman and Frenkel, 2011: 508), they also resist at the level of lived space. Institutional theory, on the other hand, remains focused on the concept of “embedded agency” that, as noted earlier, fuels the debate between phenomenological- and more agentic schools within the institutionalist camp. Indeed, the inherent tension within this idea of embedded agency again splits the institutionalist camps: On the one hand, the emphasis on context and cultural scripts as constructing also social actors (Meyer, 2010), while on the other hand, emphasis on institutional entrepreneurship, meaning on the agency of actors to constitute institutions (Battilana and D’aunno, 2009; also Zilber, 2007; Navis and Glynn, 2010).

In conclusion, the major ontological distinctions, herein accentuated, regarding the social character of actors and their relations, produce two distinct definitions of the sociability of space. From a Lefebvrian perspective, space is monumentalizing the asymmetries of power among social groups or agents, as determined through processes of exploitation, exclusion, struggle, coercion, and resistance. “The space hat homogenizes thus has nothing homogeneous about it,” explains Lefebvre (1991: 308) and only an act holds its fragments together “like a fist clenched around sand” (1991: 320). From an institutionalist perspective, space embodies meanings, which are socially constructed and then assigned aspatialized form; space embodies relational processes of sensemaking, translation, and enactment within a particular institutional context.

Foundations for Interchange

When it comes to the study of space and spatiality, can these two ontologies spur each other towards new realms of study? In the following section, we explore bases for fruitful dialogue, which while not undermining the ontological foundations of each theoretical tradition, would allow each theoretical approach to respond to calls for regeneration.

First, Lefebvre’s analytic theory of space, which explores a triad of social spaces, is an important foundation for institutionalist analyses of space and spatiality. While Lefebvrian definitions of the three spaces (“representations of space” or “conceived space”; “spatial practice” or “perceived space”; and, “representational space” or “lived space”) do not neatly map onto the pillars of institutions, both approaches hence highlight the multidimensionality of social structure, action and artifact. In addition, like Lefebvre, institutionalists too would focus on the dynamic relations among the triad of spaces or among the pillars of institutions, thus acknowledging the complexity of relations within each triad. From a Lefebvrian perspective, “as a three part dialectic, the three dimensions work together, but can also contradict each other” (Kingma, 2008: 33). Watkins (2005: 220) adds: “All three aspects of the triad are continually and mutually informed and informing, and as such are essential in the successful negotiation of the social world. Furthermore, both approaches continue to spur empirical research. Lefebvre (1991: 40) writes, “The perceived-conceived-lived triad (in spatial terms: spatial practice, representations of space, representational space) loses all force if it is treated as an abstract ‘model’.” In inspiring and driving empirical research, Lefebvre’s theory of space, like institutionalism in general and Meyer’s phenomenological institutionalism in particular (see Drori and Krücken, 2009), have been the most generative “theoretical research program.” In these ways, Lefebvre’s scheme of conceived-, perceived- and lived spaces inspires and drives institutional analysis of space-related phenomena.

Indeed, the conceptual import of Lefebvre’s theory of space resonates with recent turns in institutional theory and impregnates institutionalism with further advances. First, seeing the recent material and visual turns in institutional theory, reaching out to a Lefebvrian theory of space expands the institutional analysis of organizational aesthetics to space. Emphasis on space and spatiality broadens the scope of aesthetic and materialized organizational dimensions to be deciphered with institutional terminology and considered as constructed through institutional processes. For example, as further elaborated on in the following section, by interjecting Lefebvrian definitions of the three spaces onto the vocabulary of institutionalized logics, we coined the term “spatialized logic” to consider the conceived, lived and perceived—hence embodied and materialized—expressions of different interpretive scripts of Jerusalem’s Western wall (Preminger and Drori, 2016).

Second, engaging with Lefebvrian tradition and focusing on space and spatiality gives institutional theory the opportunity to expand analysis beyond its traditional focus on discourse and textual configurations to consider additional aspects of institutionalization. First, as noted earlier, this is an opportune time for institutional theory, seeing that recent institutional research is increasingly cognizant of the material and the embodied and attuned to visual, emotional and spatial configurations. Second and furthering this research line, importantly drawing on Lefebvrian focus of spatiality, broadens multi-modal institutional analysis (see Jones et al., 2017). Third, seeing the recent turn of institutional theory towards the study of the micro-foundations of institutions, thus redirecting towards agent-based and day-to-day institutionalization, links with Lafebvre’s emphasis of the role of the body in activating social space. Because reaching out to a Lefebvrian theory of agency and space also challenges institutional analysis to consider matters of power and hierarchy, furthering institutionalist analysis in such direction would surely need to separate itself from traditional contingency theory, also by accentuating themes of the constructed character of social hierarchies, but such institutionalist accounts of social categories and differentiation mechanisms is already well developed (see, for example, Rao, Monin, and Durand, 2003; Navis and Glynn, 2010; Kennedy and Fiss, 2013). Last, the Lefebvrian analytic triad of spaces has already framed analyses of globalization (Crang, 1999) and of glocal organization (Höllerer, Walgenbach, and Drori, 2017) and is employed in the articulation of spatialized logics (Preminger and Drori, 2016). For such studies, Lefebvre’s analytic work spurs institutionalism to address the multidimensionality of any material-, and specifically spatialized, phenomena.

Likewise, institutional theory is surely illuminating for a Lefebvrian analysis of space and spatiality. To date, there have been instances where institutional terminology has already been borrowed by some Lefebvrians for the analysis of space and organizational aesthetics. Wasserman (2011), for example, borrows DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) iconic work on isomorphism, which is one of the constitutive works of neo-institutionalism (Greenwood and Meyer, 2008), to analyse the similarity in architectural style between the iconic new buildings of two Israeli organizations. Likewise, in discussing the spatial dimensions of organizational identity, the language of scripting and re-scripting, which is central to institutional theory, is invoked to emphasize the role that workers and others living in organizations have in struggles over the character of the organization (Taylor and Spicer, 2007: 333). In these pioneering bridging studies, such borrowing of institutional terminology is without the underlying institutional assumptions. Most clearly, Wasserman’s (2011) employment of the concept of “isomorphism” remains focused on mimicry itself, rather than on the institutional mechanisms that drive such similarity of form and processes of emulation.

Importantly, discussions and interchange between institutionalism and Lefebvrianism advance a more nuanced understanding of the reality of the material, acknowledging the material and spatial form is the product of social process. The neo-Marxist root of a Lefebvrian approach led to an emphasis on the spatial form of social struggles over “real” resources. For institutionalists, while the physicality of space makes space more tangibly real than verbal, textual or visual modes of meaning, space too is socially constructed and thus imprinted by its social context. Without resolving the “chicken-or-egg” dilemma regarding primacy of legitimacy over more material social resources, both approaches recognize that the physicality of space only veils the social processes—conflict or institutionalization—that constitute and validate its actuality. Obviously, social context, often described in terms of locale and epoch, into which space is born, invites engagement with Stinchcombe’s widely acknowledged imprinting hypothesis. For example, Wasserman’s (2011) analysis of two public buildings in Israel, specifically of a governmental ministry and a university, reveals that their spatial array reflects the socio-cultural context of Israeli society and that their spatiality “normalizes” the organizational identity in reference to Israeliness. These spatialized cultural meanings, which are imprinted into and carried by other structures, practices, and behaviours, constitute an institutional order. Likewise, seeing the principal interest of organization scholars in social construction, space emerges as a “site” for related processes. For example, both Petani and Mengis (2016), who study “lost spaces,” and de Vaujany and Vaast (2014), who study “spatial legacies,” consider the traces of history that are embodied in organizations’ space and have a lingering constitutive impact on the organizations’ trajectory.

Overall, both theories—Lefebvrian theories of space and institutional theory of organizations—have much to gain from conceptual cross-fertilization. Such bridging across the theoretical divide has been previously suggested. For example, in linking neo-institutionalist ideas of mimetic isomorphism with Lefebvre’s three spaces, Wasserman (2011: 24) writes,

For neo-institutionalism, this paper suggests the applying of symbolic isomorphism to spatial representations and to examine the diffusion of fashions and trends in organizational architecture.

Propositions for Lefebvre-inspired Institutional Analyses of Space

Building upon this foundation for cross-fertilization between Lefebvrian and institutional perspectives, further inroads into institutionalist analysis of space are warranted so as to recognize the social role of space as an important stage for institutional processes. In this spirit, and paraphrasing Meyer, Höllerer, Jancsary and Leeuwen’s articulation of an institutionalist theory of visuality in organizations (2013: 494–496), we offer the following propositions regarding the institutional aspects of space and spatiality:

• The spatial mode of meaning construction materializes, organizes, communicates, stores and passes on social knowledge within particular communities; it both constitutes complex systems of symbolic signs and is able to build up and organize zones of meanings.
• The spatial mode of meaning construction contributes to a society’s social stock of knowledge and, hence, is a part of an objectified social reality. The use of spatial means serves to create, maintain, and defend particular forms of practice, and the particular forms of knowledge that underpin them.
• The spatial mode of meaning construction is characterized by a prevalence of all-inclusive and immediate information, rather than linear and sequentially arranged information.

And, highlighting the uniqueness of the spatial as a mode of meaning that is distinct from verbal, textual or visual modes of meaning, we add that:

• The spatial mode of meaning materializes social arrangements and socially constructed realities through highly taken-for-granted physical and geographical area, its boundaries, and its dimensions of spread or congestion.
• Moreover, the spatial mode of meaning provides the “stage,” or mise-en-scène, for the discursive performativity of other aesthetic artifacts and for the role performance of social actors. In this way, space’s role as a mode of meaning is amplified through the situating of such artifacts and actors in its span.

These propositions—inspired by Lefebvre’s tradition and anchored in institutionalism—could guide researchers of space and spatiality to seek the institutional order and institutional dynamics that underlie the existent physicality and presumed permanency of the space. From such an institutionalist perspective, relevant research questions are: What are the meanings expressed by, and in, the space? What are the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive institutional dynamics to construct and then assign such meanings? How do such spatialized meanings guide the construction of social actors and social action? In the following section, we illustrate the potency of such a synergic perspective for site-specific research.

Exemplar Analysis: Studying Jerusalem’s Western Wall

Throughout this essay we set the foundation for formulating and articulating an institutionalist theory of space and spatiality in organizations, which is inspired by and engaged with Lefebvre’s foundational conceptualization of space and spatiality. The basic premise for such an institutionalist perspective is the following definition of space as spatially embodied meanings, which are (a) assigned following relational processes of rationalization, sensemaking, translation, and enactment, (b) anchored in the three pillars of regulative, normative and culture-cognitive, and (c) enable and constrain social action. From this perspective, space is the taken-for-granted, namely institutionalized to the point of being socially invisible, that is all around us. Such taken-for-grantedness makes space into an important target for institutionalist analysis that would unpack the meanings attributed to space so to make it recognized as having certain attributes and ritualistically reaffirmed as having these attributes. Indeed, like all other theories of space, our attempt to formulate an institutionalist interpretation of social space aims at providing a better understanding of how social actors make sense (interpret, translate, and organize knowledge) of space and how such spatialized ideas co-constitute structures, practices, behaviours, ideas and feelings. Therefore, as institutionalists have argued about verbal, textual and, recently, visual material, we recognize space as a “central part of the strategic repertoire” that is available for use by “culturally skilled entrepreneurs” (Meyer et al., 2013: 492). The sociability of space is, therefore, the codification of space as a sign system that exhibits and communicates meanings. In other words, just as language, and lately also visuals and other artifacts, are used to identify discourse, so is space—its design, behaviour in it, and opinions of it—an embodied expression of culture and discourse. This approach is, obviously, rooted in the constructivist scholarly tradition that concentrates on the performativity of organizational structures, practices and also artifacts. Accordingly, space embodies institutions, carries institutional knowledge, and constructs institutional life; hence, space echoes its social context.

Change of the spatialized institutional order, like any change to institutions in general, comes from processes of sensemaking, translation, and recreation and diffusion. In regards to spatial reconstruction, top-down and bottom-up processes of institutional change map onto Lefebvrian spaces: top-down influences, which were the prime focus of early institutional sociologists, reflect the rules and regulations that prescribe institutional change, whereas bottom-up spurring of institutional change comes from actors’ interpretation and innovation, which echo the lived space. Such institutional processes are prevalent in regards to space: industrial buildings are demolished and new buildings come in their place, reflecting new institutional meanings for, for example, the ideal worker; city streets are being redesigned to reflect new sensitivities towards, for example, environmental sustainability or citizenship; and ancient spaces are being preserved to convey a sense of heritage and to constitute a history to a contemporary identity. In these ways, space is both a carrier of the institutional order by giving a sense of the norms to those encountering and experiencing the space and an outcome of institutional processes by giving an embodied presence to institutional logics. Space is an arena for the enactment of the institutional order, as well as for contestation of the existing social order, while space is also itself such an enactment. In the following case analysis of Jerusalem’s Western Wall, we provide an illustration of the potency of an institutional perspective of space and spatiality, which draws upon Lefebvrian concepts and tradition of research.

The Site

The Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem, which is one of the most widely recognized sites in the world today, was erected as a part of the expansion of the Second Jewish Temple by King Herod, starting in the year 19 BCE. It served as the western supporting wall of the huge flat platform that was formed on top of Temple Mount, allowing for the expansion of the Second Temple and its surrounding compound. Since the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in the year 70 CE and the many wars over, and different rulers of, this area ever since, the Western Wall remains a holy monument to the sanctity of this mountain to the three monotheistic religions and, as such, it draws millions of visitors annually. Ever since the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem’s Old City in 1967, the 500-metre long wall has progressively been partitioned into three zones, each formally designated for a specific functional use and uniquely governed (see Figure 5.1). First, the 60-metre-long section at the centre of the historic Wall is recognized as the Prayer Area and operates as a Jewish Orthodox synagogue (see Rabinowitz, 2009; Cohen-Hattab, 2010). Second, the southern end of the Wall, which has been the site of professional archaeological excavations between 1968–2000 (and obviously, even more sporadically, by European archaeologists since the late nineteenth century), is recognized as the Archaeological Park. This area was opened to the public in 2002 for self-guided tours for an entry fee, and entry may also include a visit to the Davidson Exhibition and Virtual Reconstruction Centre. Third, the northern section of the wall, which is buried under the buildings of the Muslim Quarter, was made accessible to the public in 1988. The Tunnels site offers hourly, guided tours, in various languages, and for a fee. The tours accentuate the historical connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem and to the Wall. As neatly as the governance of the three sections is set, the demarcation among the uses is continuously contested. Notwithstanding the national and political fights swirling all around the Wall, the site of the Wall is itself a site for contestation: non-Orthodox Jewish groups use the Archaeological Park to protest Orthodox prayer conventions and the Tunnels’ area is progressively encroached by Orthodox synagogues built alongside the route of the tour. In these various ways, the 2000-year-old Wall embodies and demonstrates social dynamics.

Figure 5.1 Jerusalem’s Western Wall, panoramic view.

Source: http://tomclarkblog.blogspot.com/2013_07_01_archive.html, accessed June 13, 2015.

The partition of, and the contestation over, the uses of what is otherwise a consistently uniform 500-metre-long wall is evidence for the sociability of this space. On the one hand, the Wall is magnificent in the consistency of its material form: It has been built in accordance with the vision of a single monarch, within a short time period, by a steady set of builders, and of the same pale limestone huge “bricks” along its full span. On the other hand, this same spatial and material expanse has been treated very differently over its 2000-year history and by its different rulers and visitors, reflecting the many social meanings that came to be assigned to, and carried by, this stone wall. This juxtaposition—of a constant material form over several different socio-cultural spaces—makes the Western Wall ripe for analysis. For explicating the multiple sociabilities of a singular material space we restrict our analysis to the space that directly touches upon the Western Wall. In the following section we offer an institutional analysis of the Wall that marries Lefebvrian spaces with the institutional concepts of logics, sensemaking and enactment.

Spatializing Logics

Impressed by the variety of meanings attributed to the Western Wall and evident in the spatial arrangements of the Wall and its surroundings today, we coined the phrase of “spatialized logic” to capture the spatial embodiment of an institutional logic (Preminger and Drori, 2016). In an attempt to reorient institutionalism’s “material turn” toward spatiality, we merged the widely acknowledged definition of logics as “the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality” (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999: 804; Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury, 2012) with the Lefebvrian definition of space. The dynamics of social action to conceive, perceive and live the meanings is captured in the idea of spatializing logics.

From this perspective, the three sections of the Western Wall embody three distinct spatializing logics, each reinforced and reproduced through the conceived, perceived, and lived spaces. First, the spatializing religious logic, which is embodied in the Prayer Area, conveys the holiness of the site and is carried by the Protection of Holy Places Law 1967 (conceived), the arrangement of this site in resemblance to an Orthodox synagogue (conceived), the modest dress code of visitors, bodily gestures of worshipers, and the placing of a personalized wish note within the Wall’s cracks (perceived), and the opinions of visitors and governors alike describing this area as “a universal centre of spirituality” which “stirs the thoughts and emotions of Jew and non-Jew, and energizes the inner connection between the individual and G-d” (lived; source: on-site brochure). Second, the spatializing professional logic, which is embodied in the Archaeological Park, conveys professionalized meanings, initially (1968–2000) of archaeologists, historians and scientists and currently of curators and tour guides, of professional ethics and standards and the site’s significance in the development of western, now global, civilization. This meaning is carried by the restriction of access to different zones, which is marked by designated visitation pathways (conceived), by visitors’ behaviour that respects the prohibition of touching these displays (perceived), and by the site’s naming as a Park, its self-description as “an exhibition,” and the visitors’ references to it as a mapping of history (lived). Third, the spatializing nationalistic logic, which dominates the Tunnels, specifically advocates and promotes Israeli-Jewish nationalism. This spatializing nationalistic logic is carried by the requirement of site-operated guided tours that follow a strict script (conceived), by involving visitors in demonstrations along the tour’s route and encouraging the touching of the stone and experiencing of the site (perceived), and by textual and verbal expressions of the Jewish people’s long and unbreakable relation with Jerusalem and the Temple Mount (lived). This spatialized nationalistic logic is distinct from the spatializing national logic, which celebrates Israeli statehood and citizenship and is indeed also spatialized in the open public square detached from the Western Wall. Lately, Jewish theological divisions are also receiving their spatialized embodiment in the allocation and then retraction of a fourth area along the Wall, called Ezrat Yisrael, for religious activities of reform Jews. This sectioning of additional and highly contested space, while conveying the religious logic that is also spatialized in the Prayer Area, and still demonstrates the intra-logic divisions, here between Orthodox and Reform Judaism, in their spatialized form.

This analysis produces three main insights. First, we identify that these three distinct spatializing logics recast the same physical site into three distinct social spaces and each such social space is defined by a particular meaning that gets translated into conceived, perceived and lived spatial expressions. Specifically, institutional logics get embodied in spatial arrangements at the conceived, perceived, and lived spaces, thus constituting distinct spatializing logics that segment what is otherwise a uniform physical site. Second, the principal force of spatialization is, therefore, meaning. In other words, individuals enact-conceive, enact-perceive and enact-live distinct assumptions, values, beliefs and rules, thus producing and reproducing three specific social spaces. Therefore, while we acknowledge the struggles, even wars, over control of this site, we consider this “turf war (Preminger and Drori, 2016) as a process of translation, contestation, co-construction and enactment. Third, this analysis recognizes the dynamics of relations among these three spatializing logics, thus revealing contestation over meanings and showing that such dynamics are specific to each conceptual space. Specifically, we identified patterns of bridging and leakage among the spatializing logics at the lived and perceived spaces, while at the conceived spaces the three spatializing logics were rather compartmentalized, bounded and impenetrable (see Preminger and Drori, 2016). Importantly, in accordance with Weberian analysis and with Weber and Glynn’s (2006) claims, the three institutional orders that are captured here in the three spatializing logics—namely, religion, professionalism, and nationalism—are important mechanisms in the priming, editing and triggering of sensemaking.

Spatializing Sensemaking

The spatialization of each of these logics results from sensemaking processes. Sensemaking is defined as “the process through which people work to understand issues or events that are novel, ambiguous, confusing or in some other way violate expectations” (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014: 57). Such sensemaking may be prospective, hence done in anticipation of events or issues, or may be “the on-going retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing” (Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld, 2005: 409). Either way, it “is about the interplay of action and interpretation rather than the influence of evaluation on choice,” thus linking between sensemaking and action and revealing the “micro-mechanism[s] that produce macro-change over time” (Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld, 2005: 419). Drawing Weber and Glynn’s (2006) claim that sensemaking is embedded in social context, we extend the claim to space. We argue that interpretations of the site of Jerusalem’s Western Wall get spatialized, thus defining spatializing sensemaking as the spatial expression of the process by which issues and events take meaning. Therefore, not only is space the target of sensemaking (sensemaking of space) but space is also a means for sensemaking (sensemaking through space).

The spatial demarcation between the three sections of the Western Wall—the Prayer area, the Archaeological Park and the Tunnels—is an act of sensemaking. Each site is organized uniquely to declare its distinction from the others. For example, an admission fee is charged at the entrance to both the Tunnels and the Archaeological Park, whereas the Prayer Area is open to all and at all times, even if under formal restrictions regarding dress and behaviour; likewise, in the Prayer Area and in the Tunnels visitors are encouraged to be intimate with the stones, whereas in the Archaeological Park the site’s artifacts are literally put on display, namely staged, separated by rope, and tagged with explanation signage. Therefore, while all three sections draw upon the holiness and history of the overall site, they each make a different sense, or spatially encapsulate a specific meaning, of it. This demarcation is a reaction to the multiplicity of logics and, with that, to the institutional complexity of this site. Therefore, spatiality here also conveys the sense of commensurability among the logics. We find that in the Western Wall the religious and the nationalistic logics co-exist (see Reay and Hinings, 2009), if not hybridize (see Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Pache and Santos, 2013), and do so also spatially. For example, the Tunnels are formally open only to paying visitors who go on the site operator’s tour and thus participate in the site’s nationalist performance, yet informally Jewish worshipers are admitted without entry tickets to use the site’s “hidden” synagogue or worship by the point closest to the ancient Holy of Holies. At the section of the Archaeological Park, on the other hand, the religious and professional logics come into competition (see Lounsbury, 2007), igniting political debates and civic action. In such competition, it is sensemaking that defines power, since it “is expressed in acts that shape what people accept, take for granted, and reject” (Pfeffer, 1981 in Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld, 2005: 409).

Spatializing Enactment

Enactment, which is one of the key micro-mechanism of institutionalization (Powell and Colyvas, 2008: 284), is activated by institutional entrepreneurs, namely by agents of institutionalization. At times of change, the new or renewed institutional order is framed, justified and made legitimate though the accounts given by people, thus making stories into powerful sensemaking tools (Zilber, 2007). And yet, because “individuals and environments are mutually constitutive” (Powell and Colyvas, 2008: 284), enactment delivers the complex models of the modern actor, be it an individual, an organization, the state, or even a generalized other (Meyer and Jepperson, 2000: 111). The term ‘enactment’ is not, by any means, exclusively used by institutionalists; rather, the term is also employed in the Lefebvrian tradition (see Dale and Burrell, 2008). Still, the institutionalist use the term is anchored in Goffmanian and phenomenological traditions, therefore orienting the term towards the construction of meaning and of the actor alike. Seeing that “[e]nactment represents the reciprocal interaction of the material and the cognitive world” (Powell and Colyvas, 2008: 284), the concept of spatialized enactment captures the acting of the appropriate social roles and identities in and through space. Therefore, again, not only is space an arena for the enactment of such diverse social roles and identities (enactment in space) but space is also a form of enactment (enactment through space).

Jerusalem’s Western Wall is an obvious arena for the spatializing enactment of various social roles and identities. In this area, people publically enact their gender, national, ethnic, familial, religious and political identities; they also play out the social roles of a devout believer, an archaeologist, or a tourist. Moreover, the spatializing enactment of distinct social roles and identities is highly nuanced along Jerusalem’s Western Wall. For example, Orthodox Jews would not worship in the Archaeological Park, although the stones in this section are no different than in the Prayer Area, thus the Archaeological Park violates their spatialized sense of identity; meaning, enactment of their religious identity is tied with the prayer area, and now also with specific places within the Tunnels, because of the historic significance poured into these specific social spaces. Likewise, gender identities are enacted in the spatial segregation of male and female worshipers in the Prayer Area; meaning, identity enactment of Jewish Orthodox women is tied with gender segregation of the space in the Prayer Area and identity enactment of Jewish Reform women is currently constructed through linkages with a newly demarcated (and recently revoked) area called Ezrat Yisrael. These enactments follow the scripts of contemporary actorhood, which is highly constructed, legitimate, and steeped with the themes of the individual, choice and preferences. Therefore, while “[m]odern actors are seen as autonomous and natural entities, no longer really embedded in culture, … [o]ut of the unspecified core of actorhood emanate the utilities and preferences said to produce the entire social world” (Meyer and Jepperson, 2000: 100). Seeing that contemporary actorhood is defined and organized in terms of individual choice, the Western Wall too gives a sense of choice: one can choose to worship in the central Prayer Area yet also in the Tunnels or the Archaeological Park. Yet, the spatializing logics that dominate each of these three sections of the Wall prescribe the form of spatializing enactment that is appropriate, formally and informally, at each section. This confirms the institutional embeddedness and institutional boundaries of spatializing enactment.

Summary

Our analysis here includes a series of examples, where institutional vocabulary interjects with theory of space to constitute an institutional theory of space that, in turn, would interpret various spaces and locations. Additional institutional concepts could illuminate the spatiality of Jerusalem’s Western Wall. Some, such as translation and diffusion, would illuminate the processes of spatial institutionalization, deinstitutionalization and reinstitutionalization. Others, such as loose coupling, would describe the characteristics of spatialized institutional order. And others yet, such as field or network, would describe the institutional context of such space or location, while terms such as embeddedness would describe the relations between the spatializing institution and its context. Institutional analysis of space has much to mull on, also seeking examples of spaces and places that challenge the conceptual premises of institutionalism.

Concluding Comments: Spatiality Between Lefebvrianism and Institutionalism

Any visitor to Jerusalem’s Western Wall would be awed by security arrangements in, and all around, it: armed soldiers, security check points, surveillance cameras, and watch towers are a matter of security routines in this physical space. How, we are asked by colleagues, can institutional analysis ignore the role that state power plays in this locale, when we concentrate on spatialized logics, sensemaking and enactment? Power, and particularly the security capacities of the state, is indeed an obvious marker of control and hegemony. Institutional analysis, such as we propose here regarding the ignitable locale of this holy site in Jerusalem, diverts attention away from muscular power and towards consideration of how institutional forms and dynamics shape what people accept as legitimate or as taken for granted. Therefore, the research puzzle regarding Jerusalem’s Western Wall is not the mere capacity of coercive power to shape this space, but rather the institutional processes that frame the options for the exercise of power and constitute the exercise of power as it is. In this suggestive analysis of Jerusalem’s Western Wall, which we pose as a provocation for further development of a Lefebvre-inspired institutional perspective on space and spatiality, we highlight the importance of culture and institutions for the analysis of space.

Our call for institutional analyses of space is inspired by the recent turn in organizational institutionalism towards the material, visual and multimodal aspects of organization, organizations, and organizing. Such recent institutionalist turn towards materiality, visuality and multimodality, demands expanding the scope of institutional analysis of space and spatiality. Space—as a principal domain of action and enaction, rather than as mere “background” for other organizational aesthetics—deserves specific institutional attention and space needs to be integrated into institutional discussions. And, obviously, any discussion of space in organization theory would draw upon the iconic work of Lefebvre (1991) and the many critical analyses that followed in his path (see Kornberger and Clegg, 2004; Dale, 2005; Taylor and Spicer, 2007; Kingma, 2008; Wasserman and Frenkel, 2011; Wasserman, 2012). And still, as outlined in this chapter, the ontological gulf between Lefebvre and institutionalism spurs us to follow Wasserman (2011) in proposing a research-based bridge. Without evading the ontological differences between the two theories, we propose that engagement between institutionalism and Lefebvrianism is potentially fruitful conceptually and empirically. The goal of this chapter is to relate—compare and engage—the two theoretical approaches as they refer to space. We claim that our proposed Lefebvre-inspired institutional readings of space, and our institutional analysis of the site of Jerusalem’s Western Wall, serve as first steps in this direction. We suggest that accounting for spatializing aspects of institutions and institutionalization—specifically spatializing logic, spatializing sensemaking and spatializing enactment—rests upon regarding the Lefebvrian conceived-lived-perceived as tangible dimensions of the spatialized institution. Much work remains, obviously, to fully act upon the institutionalist impulse to seek the embodied, materialized, visualized and spatialized dimensions of institutions to create a dialogue between the two theoretical traditions as they come to analyse materiality, visuality and spatiality.

Acknowledgement: We thank Tammar Zilber and the editors of this compilation for their most sensible and helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.