Thinking about Social Problems: An Introduction to Constructionist Perspectives (Second Edition) Book

The premise of the book is interesting: non-places lack the significance to be really considered as spaces; they are spaces that are not, anthropologically, places. However, the book falls short. Auge concentrates on defining what an anthropological space is, although people with even a fairly basic knowledge of anthropology will know this. At the same time he often is vague on the concept of non-places, as a result of which I have so much doubts about the concept that I do not see it as a useful tool. When he writes of airports as non-places, I am reminded of the narrator's discussion of airports in Palahniuk's Fight Club; but then I realize that people work there, and for them it is an anthropological space. Second of all, sticking to the airport, we can easily see it as a anthropological place despite its super-modern qualities. The way airports are divided into different places, the way we interact with security, the VIP lounges and waiting rooms, etc. where interaction takes place, which is characterized by its own rules, and seems to form a place that transcends location.
Taking transit into account, when most of us take a bus, subway or fly somewhere, it is true - we do so in virtual isolation. But think of the field trip, or when a group of people travel together, e.g. annually, to an annual retreat or a business camp, which will result in a completely different way that a given space is used. Similarly the hotel room - it seems a non-place at first, but if we shift our attention to a concrete room, we may find history, e.g. a room once occupied by a well-known person in the Chelsea Hotel. The same could be said about a specific supermarket or shopping center, particularly when it is not used as a place to engage in consumer activity, but a social space. Think off mall rats, who are just there, the young people who redefine these spaces by using them as places to go out for a date. In this context it may make such space seem more like places than a historic tourist attraction, which is approached in the post-/hyper-modern way Auge discusses. Furthermore, the assumption that one is anonymous in such non-spaces, an individual without links to the community seems either myopic or deemphasizing the way a space is used by those visiting it. Even more problematically, this raises questions of the existence of non-places prior to super-modernity. I also have an issue with his view that entering non-places takes away our identity (in the social sense), and we only are identified when entering or exiting a non-place. This argument completely falls apart if you use cash rather than a check or credit card (an issue Auge adroitly avoids, which is problematic in light of the view that we are always observed and never anonymous in a 'panopticonic' world). When one visits a supermarket, or anything else that is deemed a non-place, and meets a colleague, friend, etc. this stops applying. We can say that Auge mentions that the traveler he discusses (and, by extension shopper, or anyone else in a non-place) is alone. However, this is problematic: the same rule seems to apply to many pre-super-modern spaces. This beckons at the old conundrum of the tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it: if I visit a supermarket, and no one is there to identify me, have I visited the supermarket? Barring the question of self-consciousness (I identified myself in the supermarket), which Auge does by separating an individual from a society, this is not, again, limited only to super-modernity, but to a broader question of how society functions (also think of taboo places that existed, had an anthropological role as myths, but were not ventured into).
Auge is not reckless in his argument, and he mentions (mentions, whereas it should be emphasized) that the status of a non-place is fluid, preparing for such contingencies, but he never seems to give them any thought, as a result of which he creates the impression of being dismissive of them. Furthermore, he draws very heavily on the work of Michel de Certeau, which he simply places in the context of what he calls 'the three excesses of super-modernity', which undermines the originality of his discussion.
Auge tries to place the notion of non-places in the area of politics. This is risky, and I consider it ill-advised. First of all, he sees the status of a non-place as fluid. If it is for this quality that he believes such places are e.g. targets of terrorist attacks (a very problematic statement in this day and age) or lead to the strengthening of nationalist politics, which aim to give places their significance. But if we take his entire argument into account, it seems that they are actually protesting (in his context, as it seems that recent history invalidated parts of this hypothesis) against the way a place is used.

Tentatively I think that the book suffers from comparisons to other anthropological texts, while ignoring western historicity and being vague about a number of differences. I think that it is possible to find examples of non-places in times preceding super-modernity. How does a modern day supermarket differ from a marketplace of 400 years ago? Is a modern mom and pop store a non-place? How does a a modern day passenger differ from a traveler, and why is a 'traditional' train a place, whereas the TGV is not? Auge's text never offers us any insight into these questions, even if he employs them in his text, such as the traveler/passenger or SNCF/TGV dichotomies. By doing so in a seemingly arbitrary manner, he seems to be undermining his own argument.

The book left me nonplussed, but the fact that I wrote such a long (and likely rambling) review shows that it has the potential to challenge certain assumptions, and definitely is thought provoking, despite of its shortcomings.