1What if, instead of knowing too little about public space quality, we are dealing with too many conflicting ideas on what makes a public space appealing? The scientific literature on public spaces is vast, extolling their significance and outlining the features that make them ‘good’, ‘successful’, ‘holistic’ and ‘convivial’, while also offering counsel on how to build, design and maintain them (Carr et al., 1992; Cooper, Francis, 1998; Hass et al., 1999; Worpole, Knox, 2007; Shaftoe, 2008; Gibson 2009; Carmona et al., 2012). Even for those who prefer a quantitative approach to the matter tools already exist aiming to measure the performance of public spaces (Metha, 2007). Furthermore, extensive degree programs focus on planning and urban design, where the quality of public spaces is a key consideration. Thus, we may rightfully assert that there is no paucity of ideas or strategies for achieving quality in public spaces. Sociology’s contribution to this vast research field should therefore extend beyond merely collecting and describing general spatial characteristics that are considered to contribute to the overall quality of spaces, like accessibility or safety – a task already undertaken by other disciplines. Rather, we should be sensitive to the social processes that arrive at such conclusions as well as to the struggles over the interpretation and meaning of quality of spaces. Thereby sociology can provide a more comprehensive understanding of how the quality of public spaces is assigned, negotiated and contested. In other words, a sociological approach to the topic of ‘quality of space’ gains little when confined to a general and predicative understanding of quality. Instead, I advocate for a more refined concept of quality: one that puts forward the notion of evaluative quality. Such a conceptualization brings the values that underpin different ideas of spatial quality to light as well as the way those are embedded into social webs. While other approaches may have recognized the need to move from general notions of quality to an evaluative concept, it has yet to be established how exactly such a conceptualization could look like. It is the principal goal of this paper to develop an initial framework for such a concept. Therefore, it does not seek to test or develop quantitative or methodological toolkits on how to assess the quality of a space. Rather its contribution is a conceptual one aiming at a sociologically advanced notion of spatial quality.
2The second chapter of the paper approaches the matter of quality of space thru the lens of valuation theory. The third section deepens the resulting conceptualization of quality by linking it to the notion of the orders of worth (Boltanski, Thévenot, 2006). Accordingly, the paper defines the quality of space as those spatial characteristics that are of relative value within a subject’s order of worth. Although the papers ambition is mainly a conceptual one, I nonetheless test the potential of these conceptions in the fourth part of the paper using the redevelopment of Potsdamer Platz in Berlin during the 1990s as an illustrative case by applying a qualitative document analysis. Ultimately, the conclusion of the paper ties all these threads together and offers an outlook focusing on empirical expansion as well as conceptual enhancement.
3While much attention has been paid to identifying the spatial characteristics that distinguish the quality of public spaces, little discussion has taken place regarding the characteristics that constitute ‘quality’. This gap in the literature leaves questions unanswered, such as: What does it mean to speak of ‘quality of space’ rather than ‘characteristics of space’? How can we distinguish quality from mere properties or specific features? While acknowledging the connection between these aspects, I contend that ‘quality’ constitutes something unique: in its singular notion ‘quality’ is predominantly associated with positive connotations. While there may exist negative couplings, such as ‘poor quality,’ they are sparse in representation and fail to proportionally factor into the term’s conceptual evolution (Simpson, 1991; Hornby, 2020). Thus, positive semantics preside, as exemplified by definitions of quality as a ‘degree of excellence,’ and a ‘superiority in kind.’ Moreover, synonyms of the term are almost uniformly affirmative in tone, including terms such as ‘excellent’ and ‘superior’ (Merriam Webster, 2023). This may seem commonplace, yet the affirmative connotation attached to the term of quality provides an opportunity to differentiate it from related concepts: To declare something as excellent or superior, it must undergo an evaluation first – be it intuitive, quick and unconscious or the result of an elaborate process (Buhr, Kaus, 1971). Hence, I propose an evaluative notion of quality.
4It is at this point where theories of value and valuation come into play. Traditionally, these themes have been explored from two perspectives: economics, which concentrated on the value of goods and their relationship to prices, and moral philosophy, which explores values as ethical ideas. Sociological approaches have incorporated both perspectives and often added a historical dimension (Lamont, 2012). By examining specific aspects of debates surrounding values and valuation, we gain insights into analogous aspects regarding the concept of quality. This primarily involves the attempt to overcome the long-established dichotomy of extrinsic and intrinsic concepts of value through procedural and relational approaches.
5One common distinction among various approaches to value theory pertains to the question of whether value is something that an object possesses intrinsically by virtue of certain properties, or whether it is ascribed to it solely by an external observer (Orlean 2014; Heinich, 2020). This distinction thus concerns the ontological status of value and is often referred to as «value realism» versus «value anti-realism» (Tappolet, Rossi, 2016, 9). Forms of «value realism» assume that values exist independently of human thinking and feelings (ivi, 8). The intrinsic conception of value therefore regards them to be objective, universal and factual. Rejecting this claim, «value anti-realism» contends that values are subjective, relative to individual emotions and perceptions (ivi, 9). From this perspective, values are thus to be considered as contingent, relative, and at times even illusory. In the wake of general criticism against classical metaphysics, contemporary thought on the matter of value shifts more and more towards an extrinsic notion (Heinich, 2020). Nonetheless, Heinich cautions not to take the extrinsic-subjective perspective too far (ivi, 4), as a purely mentalistic approach may foster solipsism (everyone for oneself) and individualism (no institutions, no external constraint, no stabilization process), as well as postmodern relativism (Tappolet, Rossi, 2016, 9). Therefore, in recent texts authors suggest a third way that reconciles the two basic perspectives rather than treating them as antithetical. For this, a shift in thinking is needed on two fronts: for one, we replace the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy with a continuum. Moreover, this necessitates a transition from essentialist to procedural approaches.
- 1 As Tappolet and Rossi (2016, 7) have argued, definitions of values are inherently circular, as at l (...)
6Heinich (2020) emphasizes that an object’s value is rooted in both extrinsic-subjective and intrinsic-objective resources continuously in interplay. At one end of the spectrum are extrinsic resources, which include the mental representations of valuators such as perceptive patterns and evaluative categories, as well as the relations between subjects and objects. On the opposite end are intrinsic resources, consisting of the object’s properties and material characteristics, which can be understood as «affordances» that an object offers for perception and evaluation. To speak of an interplay between the different categories of this continuum already points to the procedural nature of this approach. In line with this, some value theories promote a pragmatic shift from value to valuation (Dewey, 1939; Lamont, 2012; Hutter, Stark, 2015; Brosch, Sander, 2016; Heinich, 2017). Rather than obsessing over the elusive true value of an object, attention is directed to how actors assign and demonstrate the value they attach to it. This points to the relation between valuation (assigning value) and evaluation (assessing value), which are separate yet often intertwined processes (Vatin, 2013). While moments of assessing value are considered here, I mainly focus on the processes of assigning value due to the papers limited scope. The dynamic nature of these processes underlines the importance of their contextual positioning. Each (e)valuation takes place within a specific situation ranging from private conversations to tests of professional expertise. As this context can influence the (e)valuation, equal attention must be paid to analyzing it (Stark, 2017). Additionally, recent value theories emphasize the significance of social relations. Not only must we consider the social institutions that provide stability and generalization in valuations processes (Heinich, 2020), moreover (e)valuation is inherently a cultural and social process due to the necessity of distinguishing and comparing the entities in question. This comparison requires an intersubjective agreement on a set of referents for correlation or distinction as well as a negotiation regarding proper criteria and the legitimacy of the assessor (Lamont, 2012, 205). Both of these aspects are themselves, so my argument, influenced by values1. To account for the social influences on an individual’s evaluative predilections Heinich (2020) resorts to the concept of shared mental representations. However, I argue that these concepts are too broad and general. After all, there are also numerous other concepts that can be counted as shared mental representations such as knowledge, desires, beliefs, convictions, conventions, narratives, rationalities, symbols, and imaginations. For the purposes of this study, I therefore propose working with the concept of ‘orders of worth’, which I will discuss in the next chapter. Before proceeding, let me summarize the key takeaways from this brief excursion into value theory for our understanding of quality.
7Despite the diversity of approaches, Brosch and Sander (2016, 398) reveal a common thread: each approach describes the process of valuation as «attributing importance to something». This echoes the positive connotations associated with ‘quality’. The reviewed literature unequivocally endorses the correlation between value, valorization, and quality (Heinich, 2020), reinforcing the proposed evaluative concept of quality. We have learned to avoid the trap of intrinsic versus extrinsic conceptions. Rather than identifying quality solely with an object’s properties (quality as possession) or placing it in the eye of the beholder alone (quality as attribution), we take a holistic approach that considers the interplay between internal-objective and external-subjective components. Thus, I preliminary define the quality of spaces as a combination of 1) the material properties and affordances of a particular space, and 2) the subject’s positive valuations of certain spatial properties based on its shared value system. Additionally, I acknowledge that the process of assigning and expressing value depends on 3) the situational context in which the valuation occurs. The predilections and criteria of judgment may be influenced by more than one value systems at the same time. To provide a more systematic framework, I now introduce the concept of ‘orders of worth’.
8Since the publication of their book On Justification. Economies of Worth, the theoretical program of Boltanski and Thévenot (2006) has been widely taken up, further developed, and productively criticized (Honneth, 2010; Lamont, 2012; Stark, 2017). By developing the multitude of orders of worth they provide us with a framework to systematically capture the diverse evaluative preferences shaping a subject’s value attributions. Making it possible to take the «value pluralization in modern society» (Palazzo, Scherer, 2011, 915) into account.
9The various orders of worth each offer a blueprint for what is deemed valuable and deserving, thereby legitimizing and justifying actions, situations, or entities and offering criteria for assessing their worth. They are not strictly linked to specific social domains like education, family, or politics (Godechot, 2009, 193). Initially, Boltanksi and Thévenot (2006, 159-164) identified six of them: the order of inspired worth valorizing creativity, inspiration, originality and uniqueness, the order of domestic worth valorizing tradition, faithfulness, kinship and responsibility as well as honor (ivi, 164-178), the order of fame worth valorizing (public) reputation, success and distinction (ivi, 178-185), the order of civic worth highlighting the importance of the common good, participation, representation and solidarity as well as legal correctness (ivi, 185-193), the order of market worth putting value on free competition, desire, luxury, monetary wealth (possession) and profit, but also on liberty and opportunism (ivi, 193-203), and the order of industrial worth valorizing efficiency and productivity, fulfillment of needs, rational and methodical organization as well as optimization (ivi, 203-211). In more recent works, both authors have added further orders to this list, such as the order of projective worth, which is central for the new spirit of capitalism with its focus on connectivity, spontaneity and flexibility (Boltanski, Chiapello, 2005), or the order of green worth underlining the importance of sustainability and environmental friendliness (Lamont, Thévenot, 2000).
- 2 For a detailed overview of all order of worth see Reinecke et al. (2015), 45f.
10All of them are ideal-type constructions, that reflect a specific understanding of the common good, called the higher common principle. Actors must justify their actions by demonstrating the universality of their position. This corresponds closely to the bridging of the objective-subjective divide whereby «the subject must believe in the universality of the value he defends» (Heinich, 2020, 7f.). This is accompanied by the criteria on which the state of (un)worthiness is determined, as well as naming typical subjects and objects of an order of worth and their relationships. Beyond that, Boltanski and Thévenot present which investment is needed to generate worth in a particular order. The situations in which a demonstration of worthiness and value is required, are called tests. They contain moments of judgement and reveal what counts as legitimate source in each world2. What makes tests particularly interesting for the empirically case of this paper, is that they do not just refer to peak moments within one order of worth but also to conflicts between the orders, as many situations are such, that they can be addressed by various higher principles. Here different orders of worth compete with another in terms of assigning and assessing value (Lamont, 2012; Reinecke et al., 2015).
11To illustrate how orders of worth relate to 1) the material properties and affordances of an object as well as to 2) the evaluating subject and 3) the context, the everyday example of a table can be used: «under a familial-domestic conception of order […] the table acquires the meaning of an invitation to dine together, whereas in the context of an industrial value system, it has the meaning of a work surface, or, in the context of a market system, that of a meeting place» (Honneth, 2010, 382). Similar, an object, like this table, can have different valued material characteristics. In case of a domestic order of worth the proposed invitation requires a table large enough to fit the whole family (kinship) hence the tables size is of fundamental importance while it might be especially valued when handed down thru generations (tradition); the quality of a work surface sought after in the industrial value system, as Honneth suggests, might be its resilience and sturdiness (efficiently fulfilling the need); whereas the value a meeting table possesses in a market order of worth might be measured by the desire it generates in competitors and the price for which one could sell it (desire, wealth). Hence, the tables properties that could be especially valuable are its rare and expensive materials, whereas the proper size is just a necessity (which it is in all cases, some just assign more value to the fact than others). What might positively influence the price is also the reputation of the table’s designer brand, indicating a connection to the order of fame.
12We can draw an analogy to spatial properties: the quality of a space reflects not all its spatial properties but only those which are of relative importance and significance depending on the evaluator’s criteria and the given context. Varying with the situation, a subject may perceive the easy accessibility of a space as positive or threatening. Sometimes it is the romantic winding alleys that define the quality of a space, sometimes the expansiveness of large squares. There are contexts in which we want a space to stand out of its surroundings (e.g. memorials) and others where we prefer a harmonious integration into its environment (e.g. in regard to its surrounding nature). Sometimes it is the spatial logic of networking, sometimes that of boundaries that is valued. The local concentration of places may be preferred over the mobility of trajectorial spaces and vice versa (Knoblauch, Löw, 2017). Here, for example, the question of the purpose of a space and how efficiently it serves this purpose can make a difference (industrial order). Generally, value can be assigned to a space due to its uniqueness (inspired order), the price that can be generated by selling it (market order), its reputation (incl. buildings of star architects) as well as the one that can be gained by owning this space (fame order). A space may also be deemed valuable if it was developed in a participatory process or enables community meetings (civic order). Even from the order of domestic worth, where one could assume that retreating into the private sphere is valued, criteria can be generated regarding public spaces. For example, the quality of a space can be judged based on whether its spatial characteristics enable family activities or not. This order also allows to take into account, that a space’s quality can be determined by its ability to preserve the traditional culture or represent the history of a society.
13This is by no means an exhaustive compilation but merely a starting point to link an evaluative notion of quality, orders of worth and space together in such a way, that a refined definition of the previous notion of spatial quality is possible. Accordingly, the paper defines the quality of space as those spatial characteristics that are of relative value within a subject’s order of worth. With the conceptual framework now laid out, fulfilling the paper’s main objective, the upcoming fourth chapter will serve as an initial empirical illustration of this concept’s potential.
14To this end, we will shift our focus to the 1990s redevelopment of Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz. With this paper’s aim being first and foremost a conceptual and theoretical one, this chapter serves as an initial illustration only. That said, an interpretative document analysis is employed to reconstruct latent indications of orders of worth within pre-existing materials. In addition to the existing research and documenting literature on Potsdamer Platz, the study draws upon administrative records and to some degree on journalistic coverage. In the light of this papers perspective these documents are reexamined to identify valued spatial attributes. Thus, this paper follows a reconstructive-interpretative approach regarding a historical case (Reichertz, 2016).
- 3 First a coalition between Social Democrat Party and Alternative Liste under mayor Walter Momper, fo (...)
- 4 Headed by former director of urban development Hans Stimmann.
15Historically, Potsdamer Platz emerged from Leipziger Platz with its distinctive octagonal shape, still featuring a double square system today. Speaking in terms of geography, the Potsdamer Platz occupies a pivotal location in the urban fabric of Berlin. Its storied past encompasses a wide range of historical events. In this chapter, I will focus on the redevelopment of Potsdamer Platz in the 1990s, and especially on a row of conflicts that arose during the process. Once celebrated as the prospective new heart of a reunited city, it soon became known primarily as ‘Europe’s largest construction site’ that underwent a decade-long planning and rebuilding process. Following the fall of the Berlin wall and the reunification of the city, the government found itself in an unusual situation: the major construction projects and opportunities had shifted from the city’s outskirts to its center. With only a handful of former buildings remaining, the possibilities for creative vision seemed limitless (Ausschuss für Stadtplanung und Stadtentwicklung, 1991c). Yet, the redevelopment required financial resources that the city alone couldn’t provide. Therefore, a public-private-partnership was established, involving investors like Daimler Benz and debis, Japanese electronics corporation Sony, the Hertie foundation, and the project group A+T. Such private-public-partnerships have a noticeable impact on the development of public spaces (Carmona, 2015). In this case, the partnership created a tripartite division of interests and value criteria. The city’s government3, its administrative bodies4, and the investors all had different visions for the new Potsdamer Platz. Tin the upcoming subchapters the resulting series of conflicts will be analyzed according to the orders of worth and their valued spatial qualities.
16First, we will turn to the official tender and the architectural competitions following it. The valuation criteria expressed in such calls as well as in the submitted design proposals renders them a particularly well-suited source (Farías 2015; Kreiner, 2020). The first official call initiated by the Senate in 1991 emphasized the restoration of the original baroque layout, characterized by a sequence of public streets, squares, and low-rise buildings. This original approach aimed at transforming Potsdamer Platz into a place of remembrance and commemoration, evocative of the site’s complex historical landscape, including its more somber moments and darker episodes. The guiding vision, put forward by the urban development department of the city, prioritized the value of spatial heritage and the preservation of a historical environment fulfilling a representational function (Ausschuss für Stadtplanung und Stadtentwicklung, 1991a, 1991c; Stimmann, 2008). A notion to which architectural firm Hilmer & Sattler’s design corresponded most closely, orienting itself towards the ‘European city’. Their proposal reveals a comparison between this leading idea and the ‘North American City’ in which the ascribed spatial characteristics of the latter (stacked/high-rise/large-scale) are devalued, while the ones of the former (open street/intricacy/low-rise) are considered to offer a quality conducive to life and are therefore deemed worthy (Lampugnani, Schneider, 1994; Molnar, 2010). Overall, the approach expressed in the first tender and its winning design places importance on the value of tradition and representation, the former a principle of the order of domestic worth and the later of civic worth. The quality of the public space of Potsdamer Platz was seen in its ability to function as a place of remembrance, preserving the spatial characteristics of its heritage and complex historical landscape.
17However, this ideal of its spatial quality was only partially shared by the investors. The original plans on behalf of the city were criticized as too provincial and were not at all considered to be of excellent quality (Ausschuss für Stadtplanung und Stadtentwicklung, 1991c, 1991d). The only historical reference investors deemed worthy was Potsdamer Platz’s glamorous past in the Golden Twenties. Here they saw an opportunity to distinguish themselves and to bring sparkling attention to the site of their new headquarters. Unsurprisingly, Hilmer & Sattler’s winning proposal received very little enthusiasm from their side and although it was not formally decided to deviate from Hilmar & Sattler’s plan, the investors’ vocal critique prompted a second competition. Now focusing on the specific building plans for each investor’s plot, in order to circumvent the first tender. The commissioned counter design of the investor group provides insights into their idea of a quality space. Explicitly asking for high-rise buildings considered an expression of a modern architecture and a futuristic symbol as well as shopping malls (di Lorenzo, 2001, 60f.; Frank, 2008, 308), it becomes apparent that instead of taking up the past – roaring twenties aside –, they preferred to catch up with the future. In line with the order of fame, the investors hired star architects (e.g. Renzo Piano, Hans Kollhoff, Helmut Jahn) to increase the visibility and prestige of their building plans.
18The values that underline the investors vision are therefore progress and distinction. Yet, the later shouldn’t be confused with the uniqueness and originality of the inspired order for they aim to be recognized by a common trope: a modernist, cosmopolitan metropolis. Therefore, the distinction the investors seek functions in the order of fame worth. Accordingly, they assessed the spatial quality of Potsdamer Platz by its potential to be a place of prestige.
19A conflict becomes apparent between orders of worth and their distinct ideas on the quality of space: on the one hand, the new Potsdamer Platz is envisioned as a traditional European cityscape composed of low-rise buildings and public squares. Importance is placed upon its spatial heritage and historical landscape. On the other hand, the space is conceived as a futuristic metropolis offering high-rise skyscrapers as prestigious landmarks. We have arrived at a ‘test’ (Hutter, Stark, 2015). This test was resolved by a third order of worth, which was equally important for all involved parties: the market order of worth. Both – city’s representatives and investors – had to operate in its terms in addition to their other orientation schemes. Yet, within this order the investors held the upper hand in terms of power, giving them better prospects to resolve the conflict over Potsdamer Platz’s spatial design in their favor. Their withdrawal would not just cause sincere financial trouble but also provide a negative precedent for future public-private-partnerships (Frank, 2008). As a result, the investor’s conception of quality of space prevailed as evident in the high-rise company buildings and extensive shopping areas that nowadays characterize Potsdamer Platz. The handling of the space’s heritage also turned out to be much more selective. The Sony Center, for example, integrates parts of the façade and decorative halls of a hotel which had been famous in the Golden Twenties, however, one preferred not to remember anyone about Third Reich’s Volksgerichtshof, that had once stood at the site as well.
20Furthermore, by relaxing the guidelines imposed in the original contracts, the city’s government forged an effective alliance with the investors. Thereby opening the door for another conflict. This one revolves around the land prices for which the sites were sold. In 1990, the first sale took place, in which a large plot went to Daimler Benz at unusually low prices, prompting the European Commission in the following years to investigate – yet, not the proper treatment of public space, but possible competitive distortion and illegal subsidies. In the aftermath Daimler had to make an additional payment of DM 33.8 million to the Federal State of Berlin, equivalent to 1/3 of the original sales price (European Commission, 1992). Operating both under the market order of worth, the commissions as well as the city’s land pricing committee, responsible for the original undervaluation, refer to the same spatial characteristic in their evaluation: its central location, thereby revealed as their common most valued spatial quality. The differing price assessments resulted from the comparative cases: Daimler and the city’s committee referred to plots on the outskirts of the former West Berlin, citing the company’s early interest prior to the fall of the Wall (Ausschuss für Stadtplanung und Stadtentwicklung, 1991b). In contrast, the European Commission highlighted Potsdamer Platz’s new central status, using Ernst-Reuter-Platz as a reference (European Commission, 1992). This indicates that future work on the conceptual framework presented here should elaborate the role of comparisons. With this remark we arrived at the outlook and conclusion of this article.
21Drawing on insights from valuation theory, the argumentative structure of the paper can be summarized as follows: 1) the difference between the quality of spaces and their mere characteristics lies in the positive valuation assigned to certain spatial properties; 2) Which properties receive this positive valuation depends on the orders of worth that influence both the situation and the subject of the evaluation. Thus, an evaluative notion of quality of space is established, accounting for the processual interplay between material affordances of a space and the subject’s evaluation criteria; 3) In each order of worth particular spatial characteristics are considered valuable and are therefore expected to constitute the space’s quality. This may lead to 4) conflicts about how a space should be designed and its quality assessed. These points were illustrated using the example of Potsdamer Platz’ redevelopment in the 90s. The main aim of this case was not to provide a comprehensive methodological study but rather to demonstrate how the proposed evaluative concept of spatial quality can reveal the processes in which the quality of public spaces is assigned, negotiated, and contested. However, the conceptual focus of this paper leaves much room for further empirical investigations. While the conflicts between the investors, the city’s representatives and the European Commission were analyzed thru the conceptual lens of this paper, the same still needs to be done for other groups. Hence, an empirical next step could involve assessing responses from non-profit organizations, urban development professionals, or civil society groups regarding the redevelopment. Notably, organizations like the German ‘Architektenkammer’ and the ‘Bund Deutscher Architektinnen und Architekten’ openly criticized the allocation process and regulated competitions as undemocratic (Frank, 2008, 307). The contract details and the European Commission’s verdict further reinforced the perception among civil society that this represented a privatization of the city center, with powerful business cooperations taking control of public space (Zohlen, 1994; Hunziker, 1998; Biskup, Schalenberg, 2008). To shift the temporal focus towards the present could be another line of future research. It is telling, that by the time this article gets published, a new redevelopment of Potsdamer Platz is ahead. Acknowledging that today the space of Potsdamer Platz is perceived mainly as a tourist and business hub offering very little quality. To revitalize the square, described as «ruinous» by current politicians (Weißler, 2021) and deemed «inaccessible» and lifeless even by those involved in the 90s redevelopment, a change in its spatial design is evidently needed (Matthies, 2023). This not only provides an opportunity to test the paper’s concept based on contemporary developments but also to collect reactive data, be it in form of quantitative surveys or qualitative interviews, to accompany the non-reactive dataset of this study. Beyond the empirical expansions arising from this paper’s limitations, there is room for conceptual deepening. With it already focusing on conflicts and pointing to the power dynamics underpinning the triumph of certain notions of spatial quality the paper could be substantially enhanced into a power-oriented discourse analysis (Keller, 2005). In addition to the role of comparisons mentioned earlier, a closer integration with conflict theory could prove promising.
Attualità
