I am very grateful to all of the contributors to this symposium - Emily Eaton; Julie Guthman; Nik Heynen, Peter Hossler and Andrew Herod; and Mazen Labban - for their generosity, not just in taking time to pass comment on Uneven Development (UD) but to do so with such critical magnanimity. I will resist the temptation to respond to most of the points but let me begin with a couple of engagements addressed directly to the comments, before taking a wider view. This article briefly picks up on several comments made in this exchange concerning the book Uneven Development, then raises several issues that emerge from the original arguments and extend the theory in light of empirical shifts over the last quarter of a century.

Uneven Development endeavours to derive a theory of uneven geographical development by putting in motion a 'historical dialogue' between Marx's critical theorisation of capitalism and the geograhical reality of capitalism at the close of the twentieth century, and by theorising the relations between material nature and the spatial dynamics of capitalist accumulation. The result, however, is a theory of uneven development predicated on a logical rather than a historical conception of capitalism, which furthermore supersedes the question of the production of nature in conceptualising the spatial dynamics of (contemporary) capitalism. This article argues for a re-theorisation of uneven geographical development that considers the production of nature, namely extractive industry, as a point of departure in theorising the spatial dynamics of contemporary capitalist accumulation, focusing briefly on the concentration and centralisation of capital.

Neil Smith's Uneven Development has had profound impacts on the way geographers have come to understand questions related to space and nature. In this short piece I explain what UD brings to a longstanding literature and set of debates that is commonly named 'the Agrarian Question' and revolves around agriculture's unique relationship to capitalist relations of production. Smith's distinctive approach that sees nature and space as produced by capitalist relations of production helps resolve some of the longstanding debates within the study of agriculture. While this piece applies the production of nature thesis to one particular social scientific field, I hope it points to the currency and significance of this understanding for many other academic fields and for political economy more generally.

This article takes the 25th anniversary of Neil Smith's Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space as an opportunity to consider the seminal contributions the book has made for pushing scholars to more deeply consider the connections between the persistence of capitalism and social reproduction. Furthermore, we move on from this connection to consider the emancipatory ideas within Uneven Development and their connection to prompting new forms of revolutionary imagination and political possibility.

This commentary on Neil Smith's Uneven Development revisits his production of nature thesis and uses it as a jumping off point to explore how human bodies matter in contemporary capitalism. It argues that human bodies are increasingly subsumed within capitalism in ways that go beyond the roles of humans as labourers and purchasers of goods and services in a system of commodities producing commodities. Bodies are also treated as property, transportation and as conditions of production within circuits of capitalisms. Bodies also absorb the externalities and excesses of production and provide new spaces of accumulation in their degradation.

This article, along with this special symposium, engages with the lasting significance of Neil Smith's Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space 25 years after its publication. Few books have made such productive contributions to expanding the horizons of political economy, particularly the spatiality of political economy, as has Uneven Development. This introductory article explores some of these aspects of the book's significance for the readership of New Political Economy; it remarks on the lasting if not growing significance of Smith's intellectual and political contributions two and a half decades after one of his, and the discipline of geography's, crowning achievements. At the same time it foreshadows ways in which the text can continue to push our understanding of the interconnections among nature, capital and the production of space.

During the past 30 years, politicians, professionals and academicians have been inspired by the global city concept, which has resulted in fierce competition among the large cities of the world to achieve global city status. Istanbul, like its counterparts, has been a competitor during the past three decades. Its economic, social, political and spatial structures have subsequently changed to a profound extent. This article aims to explain the spatial transformation of the city and focuses on the international business district of the city in the Buyukdere-Maslak axis. It aims to show that the spatial transformation of the city is the outcome of a wider political project, globalization, which has been constructed in the local areas through economic, political and cultural processes by deploying certain discourses. These discourses have been translated by the elite groups into economic and urban policies, which have shaped the spatial structure of the city.

The financial crisis which recently occurred is the epiphenomenon of a structural crisis of advanced capitalism. Although it referred to a very different context the diagnosis made by Habermas in his work Legitimationsprobleme des Spätkapitalismus, published in 1973, remains a very useful key in order to understand the irreducibility of social policy and the way the post-Fordist capitalism assumes the mediation between the economic and the social sphere - that is, how it deals with both the deficit of rationality and the deficit of legitimacy. Instead of being the political expression of social relations the neo-liberal system decouples labour and capital and, governed by financial markets, disconnects the social and the political rights and undermines the possibility of a true foundation of citizenship. In other words, the 'refeudalization' Habermas had reported as early as in Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit (1962) remains quite topical.

Over the last two decades the work of Jean-Luc Nancy and Giorgio Agamben has attracted widespread attention both within philosophy and more broadly across the human sciences. Central to the thinking of Nancy and Agamben is a shared theory of community that offers a model of resistance to oppressive power through radical passivity. This article argues that this model inherits the inadequacies of Martin Heidegger's attempts to conceptualize society and history. More specifically, Heidegger's understanding of collective history in terms of 'destiny' implicitly regulates the figure of community proposed by Nancy and Agamben. This alignment with the Heideggerian notion of destiny means that these later thinkers fail to offer a credible model of resistance in terms of concretely determined means of productive counter-practices. As a consequence the usefulness of the thinking of Nancy and Agamben as a conceptual framework for emancipatory politics is at best extremely limited.

The re-election of Luiz Inácio da Silva in October 2006 allows us to decipher the ways in which Brazil's political landscape has been reconstituted under the Workers Party government. The whirlwind of deregulation, privatization and restructuring under Fernando Henrique Cardoso in the 1990s-and with it, the dissolution of the industrial working class created during the developmentalist era-had torn up all established relations between economy and politics, classes and representation. The result was a period of indeterminacy, the context of Lula's first presidential victory in 2002. Since then, a novel combination of neo-populism and party statification, shored up by social-liberal handouts, on the one hand, and government graft, on the other, has helped to forge a new form of class rule in Brazil that could be characterized as 'hegemony in reverse'.

The platypus sports an unbeatable combination for strangeness: first, an odd habitat with curiously adapted form to match; second, the real reason for its special place in zoological history-its enigmatic mélange of reptilian (or birdlike) with obvious mammalian characteristics. Ironically, the feature that first suggested pre-mammalian affinity-the 'duckbill' itself-supports no such meaning. The platypus's muzzle is a purely mammalian adaptation to feeding in fresh waters, not a throwback to ancestral form.

This article provides a discursive grounding for understanding the construction of military imaginaries by adding the concepts of 'antagonism' and 'intercalation' to articulation theory. By examining the cases of industrial-mechanized warfare theory and network-centric warfare theory through the lens of this expanded articulation theory, it is argued that military imaginaries often serve to define and link conceptions of science, technology, society, economy, war, and military organization, thought, and practice into a unified image of the larger security environment - that is, the military imaginary. Military imaginaries often share a common narrative structure that privileges co-periodized change among the elements of the articulation, resulting in the phenomenon of 'antagonism' serving as a generic threat used to justify military modernization and even the use of force.

This article examines the linkage between entrepreneurship and the making of popular culture in East Asia. The central argument presented here is that the notion of entrepreneurship is central for understanding and conceptualizing the process of constructing trans-national markets for popular culture and for building new circles of 'Asian' recognition. In other words, entrepreneurial vision is not only transforming the local cultural markets by underpinning a region-wide cultural production system but also un-intentionally spurring feelings of 'Asian' sameness. The study itself focuses on four cases of entrepreneurship which exemplify the driving forces and the intended and unintended consequences of entrepreneurship, and outlines the wider theoretical and methodological implications for this concept by defining the relations between structural determinism and human agency in popular culture.

This paper reviews the status, position and legacy of Bourdieu in the sociology of music, the waxing and waning of his influence and the recent move away from Bourdieu towards something like a post-critical engagement with musical forms and practices. The idea is to show the reaction to and treatment of Bourdieu's ideas as a gauge of where we are in the sociology of culture, the various strands of influence that emanate from his work, and to assess what is at stake in a 'post-Bourdieu' moment when a position once considered progressive and critical now acts as the foil against which new work is being conducted. The article engages with some recent contributions to the music/society debate from figures in the UK and France, and points to the ways these contributions move debates on musico-social relations into territories more sensitive to the complex mediating qualities of music. Such work is better placed, it is argued, to represent music as an animating force in everyday life, including its specific mediating qualities 'in action'. At the same time, however, the construction of a new sociology of music is not without its perils. The article will conclude with some potential problems with these approaches, and take stock of what might be lost as well as gained by adherence to them.

This paper reflects upon Bourdieu's concept of cultural fields, Becker's concept of 'art worlds' and the concept of networks as developed in social network analysis. We challenge the distinction that Bourdieu makes between the objective 'relations' and 'positions' constitutive of 'social space' and visible social relationships. In contrast, we maintain that interaction is generative of social spaces and positions and should be integral to any account of them. Becker's position is better from this perspective, but while Becker refers repeatedly to social networks, he fails to develop the concept or exploit its potential as a means of exploring social structures. Both Becker and Bourdieu have an underdeveloped conception of social connection which weakens their respective conceptions of the space of cultural production. Our proposed remedy is to use social network analysis to derive 'positions' and 'relations' between 'positions', as prioritized by Bourdieu, from data on concrete interactions and relations. This allows 'world' analysis to speak to the issues of field analysis without sacrificing its strengths. We illustrate our case by way of an analysis of two UK music scenes from the late 1970s.

At several points over his career, Pierre Bourdieu articulated a framework for a sociology of science, derived mostly from a priori reasoning about scientific actors in competition for capital. This article offers a brief overview of Bourdieu's framework, placing it in the context of dominant trends in Science and Technology Studies. Bourdieu provides an excellent justification for the project of the sociology of science, and some starting points for analysis. However, his framework suffers from his commitment to a vague evolutionary epistemology, and from his correlative and surprising neglect of science's habituses, with their particular practices, boundaries, and political economies. To be productive, Bourdieu's sociology of science would have to abandon its narrow rationalism and embrace the material complexity of the sciences.

Instead of trying to locate the economic sociology of Bourdieu, I argue that his analysis of the economy was developed over such a long time period, is so rich and goes in so many interesting directions, that we are justified in speaking of Bourdieu's economic sociologies in the plural. While most sociologists know about Bourdieu's study Distinction (1986) and its analysis of consumption, there is less awareness of the fact that Bourdieu himself, towards the end of his life, said that he had produced three major studies of economic topics. These are: his work in Algeria on 'the economy of honour and "good faith"' (1950s and 1960s); his study of credit (Bourdieu et al., 1963); and his study of the economy of single-family houses (Bourdieu et al., 1999). These three studies are presented and discussed in detail, and so is Bourdieu's attempt to formulate a general program for 'economic anthropology' in his article 'The Economic Field' (1997), drawing on such concepts as field, habitus and capital. Some critique has been directed at Bourdieu's analysis of the economy, and this is also discussed.

This article examines Bourdieu's contributions to history and historical sociology. Bourdieu has often been misread as an ahistorical 'reproduction theorist' whose work does not allow for diachronic change or human agency. The article argues both that reproduction and social change, constraint and freedom, are at the heart of Bourdieu's project. Bourdieu's key concepts - habitus, field, cultural and symbolic capital - are all inherently historical. Bourdieu deploys his basic categories using a distinctly historicist social epistemology organized around the ideas of conjuncture, contingency, overdetermination, and radical discontinuity. The origins of Bourdieu's historicism are traced to his teachers at the École Normale Supérieure and to the long-standing aspirations among French historians and sociologists to unify the two disciplines. The historical nature of Bourdieu's work is also signalled by its pervasive influence on historians and the historical work of his former students and colleagues. Bourdieu allowed sociology to historicize itself to a greater extent than other French sociologists.

Pierre Bourdieu is without doubt one of the main figures in the sociological study of culture today. Yet, for a theorist so central to the subject matter of cultural studies, it is clear that there is no coherent account of Bourdieu stance in relation to the 'concept of culture' among current commentators. More importantly, in the sister-discipline of anthropology, Bourdieu is thought of as a central figure precisely because he helped move contemporary anthropological theory away from the centrality of the culture concept. This paper reviews this peculiar double reception of Bourdieu's anthropological and sociological work, closely examining these unacknowledged strands of Bourdieu's thinking on culture. The basic argument is that the anthropological reception of Bourdieu's work is more faithful to the outlines of his late-career intellectual development while the sociological portrayal - Bourdieu as a Sausserean culture theorist with a 'Weberian power twist'- is fundamentally misleading. I close by outlining how Bourdieu's work points towards a yet-to-be developed 'post-cultural' stance - one that takes cognition, experience and the body seriously - in the sociological study of culture.

This paper offers an account of Bourdieu's rise to sociological 'stardom' in the last 30 years, giving special attention to the transnational dimensions of this process. It discusses the scope and relevance of his work to the field (in the making) of cultural sociology, showing how he contributed to its current form. It also presents the articles which constitute the contents of the journal special issue. The paper insists on the importance of assessing both the virtues and limits of Bourdieu's intellectual legacy through the means of historicization and sociological self-understanding, these being preconditions that allow the furthering of the 'progress of reason' which Bourdieu himself located as at the core of scientific endeavours