In this paper, I consider the development of methods in contemporary human geography in terms of a dialectical relation of action and structure, and try to draw a new horizon of method toward which geographical research and spatial theory would develop. The positivist geography which was dominent during 1960s has been faced both with serious internal reflections and strong external criticisms in the 1970s. The internal reflections that pointed out its ignorance of spatial behavior of decision-makers and its simplication of complex spatial relations have developed behavioural geography and systems-theoretical approach. Yet this kinds of alternatives have still standed on the positivist, geography, even though they have seemed to be more real and complicate than the previous one, The external criticisms that have argued against the positivist method as phenomenalism and instrumentalism suggest some alternatives: humanistic geography which emphasizes intention and action of human subject and meaning-understanding, and structuralist geography which stresses on social structure as a totality which would produce spatial phenomena, and a theoretical formulation. Human geography today can be characterized by a strain and conflict between these methods, and hence rezuires a synthetic integration between them. Philosophy and social theory in general are in the same in which theories of action and structural analysis have been complementary or conflict with each other. Human geography has fallen into a further problematic with the introduction of a method based on so-called political ecnomy. This method has been suggested not merely as analternative to the positivist geography, but also as a theoretical foundation for critical analysis of space. The political economy of space with has analyzed the capitalist space and tried to theorize its transformation may be seen either as following humanistic(or Hegelian) Marxism, such as represented in Lefebvre's work, or as following structuralist Marxism, such as developed in Castelles's or Harvey's work. The spatial theory following humanistic Marxism has argued for a dialectic relation between 'the spatial' and 'the social', and given more attention to practicing human agents than to explaining social structures. on the contray, that based on structuralist Marxism has argued for social structures producing spatial phenomena, and focused on theorising the totality of structures, Even though these two perspectives tend more recently to be convergent in a way that structuralist-Marxist. geographers relate the domain of economic and political structures with that of action in their studies of urban culture and experience under capitalism, the political ecnomy of space needs an integrated method with which one can overcome difficulties of orthhodox Marxism. Some novel works in philosophy and social theory have been developed since the end of 1970s which have oriented towards an integrated method relating a series of concepts of action and structure, and reconstructing historical materialism. They include Giddens's theory of structuration, foucault's geneological analysis of power-knowledge, and Habermas's theory of communicative action. Ther are, of course, some fundamental differences between these works. Giddens develops a theory which relates explicitly the domain of action and that of structure in terms of what he calls the 'duality of structure', and wants to bring time-space relations into the core of social theory. Foucault writes a history in which strategically intentional but nonsubjective power relations have emerged and operated by virtue of multiple forms of constrainst wihthin specific spaces, while refusing to elaborate any theory which would underlie a political rationalization. Habermas analyzes how the Western rationalization of ecnomic and political systems has colonized the lifeworld in which we communicate each other, and wants to formulate a new normative foundation for critical theory of society which highlights communicatie reason (without any consideration of spatial concepts). On the basis of the above consideration, this paper draws a new norizon of method in human geography and spatial theory, some essential ideas of which can be summarized as follows: (1) the concept of space especially in terms of its relation to sociery. Space is not an ontological entity whch is independent of society and has its own laws of constitution and transformation, but it can be produced and reproduced only by virtue of its relation to society. Yet space is not merlely a material product of society, but also a place and medium in and through which socety can be maintained or transformed.(2) the constitution of space in terms of the relation between action and structure. Spatial actors who are always knowledgeable under conditions of socio-spatial structure produce and reproduce their context of action, that is, structure; and spatial structures as results of human action enable as well as constrain it. Spatial actions can be distinguished between instrumental-strategicaction oriented to success and communicative action oriented to understanding, which (re)produce respectively two different spheres of spatial structure in different ways: the material structure of economic and political systems-space in an unknowledged and unitended way, and the symbolic structure of social and cultural life-space in an acknowledged and intended way. (3) the capitalist space in terms of its rationalization. The ideal development of space would balance the rationalizations of system space and life-space in a way that system space providers material conditions for the maintainance of the life-space, and the life-space for its further development. But the development of capitalist space in reality is paradoxical and hence crisis-ridden. The economic and poltical system-space, propelled with the steering media like money, and power, has outstriped the significance of communicative action, and colonized the life-space. That is, we no longer live in a space mediated communicative action, but one created for and by money and power. But no matter how seriously our everyday life-space has been monetalrized and bureaucratised, here lies nevertheless the practical potential which would rehabilitate the meaning of space, the meaning of our life on the Earth.