That theorization, though not in itself complete, is of considerable interest. I shall return to examine its implication for cross-cultural production later.
Across the top of the grid I list four other aspects to spatial practice drawn from more conventional understandings:

1.) Accessibility and distanciation speak to the role of 'friction of distance' in human affairs. Distance is both a barrier to, and a defence against, human interaction. It imposes transaction costs upon any system of production and reproduction (particulary those based on any elaborate social division of labour, trade, and social differentiation of reproductive functions). Distanciation is simply a measure of the degree to wich the friction of space has overcome to accommodate social interaction.

2.) The appropriation of space examines the way in wich space is occupied by objects (house, factories, streets, etc.), activities (land uses), individuals, classes, or other social groupings. Systematized and institutionalized appropriation may entail the production the production of territorially bounded forms of social solidarity.

3.) The domination of space reflects how individuals or powerful groups dominate the autonomous organization and production of space through legal or extra-legal means so as to exercise a greater degree of control either over friction of distance or over the manner in wich space is appropriated by themselves or others.

4.) The production of space examines how new systems (actual or imagined) of land use, transport and communications, territorial organization, etc. are produced, and how new modes of representation arise.

These four dimensions to spatial practice are not independend of each other. The friction of distance is implicit in any understanding of the domination and appropriation of space, while the persistent appropriation of a space by a particular group (say the gang that hangs out on the street corner) amounts to a de facto domination of that space. The production of space, insofar as it reduces the friction of distance (capitalism's'annihilation of space through time) alters distanciation and the conditions of appropriation and domination.
My purpose in setting up such a grid is not to attempt any systematic exploration of the positions within it, though such an examination would be of considerable interest. My purpose is to find some point on entry that will allow a deeper discussion of the shifting experience of space in history of modernism and postmodernism.
The grid of spatial practices can tell us nothing important by itself. To suppose so would be to accept the idea that there is some universal spatial language independent of social practices. Spatial practices derive their efficacy in social life only through the structure of social relations within wich they come into play. Under the social relations of capitalism, for example, the spatial practices portrayed in the grid become imbued with class meanings. To put it this way is not, however, to argue that spatial practices are derivative of capitalism. They take on their meanings under specific social relations of class, gender, community, ethnicity, or racist'caste' and get 'used up' or 'worked over' in the course of social action. When placed in the context of capitalist social relations and imperatives, the grid helps unravel some of the complexity that prevails in understanding the transformation of spatial experience associated with the shift from modernist to postmodernist ways of thinking.
If there were an independent language (or semiotic) of time or space (or time-space) we could at this point reasonably abandon social concerns and enquire more directly into the properties of space-time languages as means of communication in their own right.
But since it is a fundamental axiom of my enquiry that time and space (or language, for that matter) cannot be understood independently of social action, I shall now shift the focus to a consideration of how power relations are always implicated in spatial and temporal practices...Interior to that general question lies another: to consider how well-established spatial and temporal practices and 'discourses' are 'used up' and 'worked over' in social power reliance !

FIGHT ORDINARY RACIST/GENDER TYPOLOGY in their ENERGY !