Workshopping “Varieties of Refiguration”: On spatial transformation, interdisciplinarity and the spatial tool box
How are spatial arrangements interlinked and transformed? How can we think about varieties of refiguration in terms of stability and change? How can we consider the interplay between stability and change in spatial arrangements in the context of the economy? During the workshop „Varieties of Refiguration? On Multiple Spatialities, Spatial Arrangements & the Economy 1,“ held at the CRC from November 21st and 22nd, we had the privilege of exploring these questions and many more. This thought-provoking event brought together researchers from around the world and across disciplines to discuss and explore the role of the spatial dimension. In doing so, the conference sought to fill a gap in economic sociology, organizational sociology, and the sociology of work, where organizers asserted that spatial dimensions have been surprisingly overlooked. By focusing on spatialities and refigurations, the discussions encouraged participants to rethink basic concepts and engage with the dynamic processes that shape our economic and organizational landscapes. Here we share our perspectives on the intensive two-day workshop as well as our ‚take home insights.‘
Expanding our spatial toolbox: Simon Pohl
While there were many interesting contributions, what struck me the most were the contributions from our own Stefan Kirchner, Lucerne’s Rainer Diaz-Bone, and Frédéric Lebaron from Paris-Saclay. By integrating path-dependency, economics of convention, and Bourdieusian social theory they presented three promising avenues from organizational, economic, and cultural sociology for expanding our spatial toolbox.
Investigate carriers and vectors to detect spatial path dependencies: Kicking off the conference, Stefan Kirchner introduced his and Nina Baur’s recent work on space dependencies. They transferred the concept of path dependency (David, 1985) to spatial questions of refiguration. Drawing on results from previous and current projects, Kirchner highlighted globally convergent and divergent processes of refiguration. These results demonstrated both rapidly changing and highly persistent socio-spatial arrangements. While the current state of refiguration theory expects spatially constituted processes of social change, it lacks a theoretical model to coherently explain these tendencies. To combat this, Kirchner and Baur (2025) propose a framework that investigates social change along four salient vectors of refiguration, negotiated by carriers of refiguration. The vectors of refiguration include processes of transnationalization, digitalization, hyper-individualization, and hyper-organization. These processes are championed or countered by related carriers of refiguration, such as states, technology, individuals, protest movements, and various organizations. By negotiating their positions, these carriers struggle for domination and influence how refigurations occur. They either uphold established socio-spatial arrangements or disrupt them, thus introducing novel ones and consequently leading to varieties of refiguration.
Examine conventions in worlds of (spatial) production: Next, Rainer Diaz-Bone offered insights into the spatial constitution of the economics of convention. Following previous work such as Boltanski and Thévenot (2018) or Storper and Salais (1997), Diaz-Bone defined conventions as logics that actors rely on for economic coordination. These conventions provide philosophies or general principles for interpreting and valuing ontologies, product quality, and even persons, actions, or processes. Consequently, they can be used as explanatory models for regional differences. Diaz-Bone drew upon the four ideal types of organizing production identified and explicated by Storper and Salais (1997), namely the interpersonal world, the market world, the industrial world, and the world of intellectual resources. In his presentation he contrasted the development of Parisian fashion and northern Italian design and manufacturing. The Parisian fashion industry developed from a centralized interpersonal constitution to a figuration that includes aspects of the market and industrial worlds by differentiating its offerings and modes of production. In contrast, northern Italian design and production emerged from decentralized but tightly knit regional integration, aligned through family-style management and producing in accordance to market world requirements. Thus, Diaz-Bone presents a compelling argument for integrating interpersonal expectations and mental patterns to understand and explain differences in observed socio-spatial arrangements.
Recognize the dual spatiality of fields: Lastly, Frédéric Lebaron argued for the consideration of Bourdieusian field theory in the research of socio-spatial phenomena. Lebaron highlighted the coinciding interest in social and physical spaces within the French sociological tradition. Similar to refiguration theory, field theory assumes an interrelation between social and spatial processes. However, field theory emphasizes structural homologies, both spatial and social. Consequently, it posits that human geography is shaped by socio-economic dynamics. In its early development—besides an early collaboration between Pierre Bourdieu and Abdelmalek Sayad (Pérez, 2024)—Bourdieusian field theory assumed a unidirectional relationship, with social processes determining spatial processes of segregation and concentration. More recent adaptations increasingly consider more diverse effects, applying the theory to city life (Wacquant, 2023) and the interactions between and across nation-states (Schmitz et al., 2023). In this context, field theory and refiguration theory offer a fruitful basis for integration when the foundational relational perspective is consequently applied to the relation between physical and social spaces. This might sensitize us to regard not only the Bourdieusian insight that it is “the habitus that makes the habitat” (Bourdieu, 2018) but also start to inquire how the habitat may shape the habitus.
All three ‘tools’ point to patterns of change and stabilization, divergence and convergence, and are in essence complementary. Convention theory offers a way to understand the norms governing expectations tied to carriers of refiguration, while field theory provides a model for the opposing tendencies associated with the vectors of refiguration. While the three proposed approaches highlight very different focal points and traditions of thought, all—either on their own or combined—offer valuable insights into how refiguration theory may be expanded to aid in our understanding and explanation of the varieties of refiguration. I, for one, am excited to further think about them in the work to come.
Interdisciplinary perspectives on spatial transformation and power relations: Linda Hering
In today’s interconnected world, the ways in which space, power, and labor intersect are constantly shifting, yet some patterns remain surprisingly stable. What I found most interesting was that all these papers were united by their emphasis on the role of power relations in shaping these transformations. Each paper explored how spatial change in different contexts—from global capital cycles to local urban peripheries—is influenced by social, economic, technological and spatial dynamics. Central to these analyses is the tension between persistence and change in spatial arrangements, particularly in relation to migration, resource use, urbanization, and digital labor markets. By exploring global examples, from Harare’s neighborhoods to India’s gig economy, the workshop speakers offered what I viewed as suggestions for better understanding how these dynamics shape our everyday lives.
For example, Şahan Savaş Karataşli’s presentation showed how historical cycles of capital accumulation—as analyzed by scholars such as Giovanni Arrighi—reveal how shifts in global power constantly reshape spatial hierarchies. Particularly impacted are spaces between core and peripheral regions, although some spatial configurations persist despite these global shifts.
Supriya Chaudhuri and Tatenda Mukwedeya’s picturesque examples of self-built neighborhoods in Harare and traditional bazaars in India illustrate the resilience of localized urban structures. These spaces persist as vital social and economic hubs even in the face of modernization and state neglect. They remind us that grassroots adaptations often outlast top-down interventions.
Beatriz Bustos Gallardo took us to Chile, where the intersection of neoliberal policies and climate change has intensified competition for critical resources such as water. These ‚resource frontiers‘ are becoming flashpoints for both conflict and innovation, as communities and industries alike struggle to adapt. Their example shows how similar labor exploitation patterns are emerging across the world’s supply chains. As multinationals seek ever-cheaper production sites, the strain on human and natural resources increases, revealing the dark side of globalization.
Another point was that labor changes have always gone hand in hand with new technologies. Technological shifts, particularly in the gig economy, are reshaping urban landscapes in India, as Priyasha Kaul presented to the audience. Platforms like Uber, Swiggy and others have introduced new forms of work, often managed through algorithmic controls that deepen precarious working conditions. These changes not only exacerbate power asymmetries between workers and corporations, but also reconfigure urban spaces to meet the demands of flexible, just-in-time labor.
Anju Mary Paul added another very interesting point when talking about migrant labor regimes. She highlighted the importance of spatial and cultural proximity in globalized labor markets. Proximity often facilitates labor mobility across borders, especially in regions with shared history or cultural ties. At the same time, gender plays a central role in shaping labor demand and mobility. Whether it’s care work in European cities or factory work in Southeast Asia, gendered expectations influence both the supply and value of migrant labor in global markets.
Looking to the future: Researching sustainable transformation
My main takeaway was that transformations in spatial structures are always shaped by power relations and unequal distribution of resources. Despite significant technological and economic changes, patterns of persistence are evident, often supported by the interests of powerful actors (e.g. states, corporations). However, almost all contributions show that transformation is not linear, but shaped by conflicting forces and patterns of persistence, and that spaces always reflect refigurations of power. I was particularly inspired by the insights that local practices—through resistance or adaptation—can serve as essential counterpoints to larger forces, creating a dialectic between global capital flows and local rootedness. Alternatively, self-built neighborhoods in Harare and bazaars in India demonstrate the stability of certain spatial patterns despite modernization and state neglect, which is consistent with my research on peri-urban settlements in Nairobi, Kenya.
I think that at least three aspects of the workshop will be of great interest for future economic sociology research. First, migration and labor experiences illustrate how gender, class and regional differences drive inequalities in spatial and social arrangements. These dimensions are often underrepresented in abstract global analyses, but are crucial for a deeper understanding of transformation. Second, the gig economy and technological governance bring efficiency and innovation, but also reinforce social and spatial inequalities. A critical examination of the political and economic frameworks behind these technologies is essential. Third, the case of Chile illustrates that resources such as water are increasingly at the nexus of climate and capital interests. Conflicts such as these are not only local but have global implications for food security and energy supply.
Conclusion
This event highlighted the importance of integrating spatial considerations into sociological analyses of the economy which is a crucial step in addressing contemporary challenges in a rapidly changing world. This need becomes particularly salient as the participants‘ contributions—as well as the work of the CRC—reveal the variance in the spatial constitution of the social. Rather than uniformly converging global trends, we observe multiple contingencies that cannot be adequately explained without attention to the spatially specific. Inspired by the diverse insights of the workshop participants, we are left wondering: How many other varieties of refiguration might we encounter if we dared to look?
References
Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2018). Über die Rechtfertigung: eine Soziologie der kritischen Urteilskraft. Translated by Andreas Pfeuffer. 2. Auflage. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.
Bourdieu, P. (2018). Social Space and the Genesis of Appropriated Physical Space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42, 106-14. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12534.
David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75, 332-37.
Kirchner, S. and Baur, N. (2025). Spatially Bound Regimes between Convergence and Space Dependence – A Varieties-of-Refiguration Approach to Social Transformations around the World. Historical Social Research.
Pérez, A. (2024). Bourdieu and Sayad against Empire: Forging Sociology in Anticolonial Struggle. Translated by Andrew Brown. Cambridge, Hoboken: Polity Press.
Schmitz, A., Atkinson, & W., Lebaron, F. (2023). Rethinking the Nation and International Relations: The Space of Nation States. The British Journal of Sociology, 74, 673-89. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.13019.
Storper, M., and Salais, R. (1997). Worlds of Production: The Action Frameworks of the Economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wacquant, L. J. D. (2023). Bourdieu in the City: Challenging Urban Theory. Cambridge, Hoboken: Polity Press.
Simon Pohl is a predoctoral researcher at the TU Berlin. In the subproject C07 “Platform Economy,” Simon conducts research on spatial conflicts surrounding Airbnb. His work focuses on the interplay between territorial and network space governance coming together in spatial regimes shaping urban practices and environments.
Dr. Linda Hering is a postdoctoral researcher in the CRC subproject A03 “Knowledge and Goods II: Communicative Action of Consumer and Intermediaries” at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. She is particularly interested in how the relationship between humans, the environment, and technology (re)shapes agri-food systems, especially in urban spaces and how this relates to sustainable transformation.