Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

Place

An approach to the concept of placelessness


in the globalization

Gabriele Miceli (0538205)


&
Luca Hernndez (0539465)

Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 2

1.

THE CONCEPT OF PLACE ........................................................................................................... 3

2.

THE IDENTITY OF PLACES ......................................................................................................... 7


3.1
2.2
2.3

3.

THE COMPONENTS OF THE IDENTITY OF PLACES ............................................................................ 7


INSIDENESS AND OUTSIDENESS. THE WAYS OF EXPERIENCING PLACES ......................................... 8
AUTHENTIC AND INAUTHENTIC ATTITUDES TO PLACE ................................................................. 10

GLOBALIZATION AND PLACELESSNESS ............................................................................. 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................... 14

Introduction
In the next pages we are going to attempt an approach to the concept of place
trying to show the importance of its understanding for current geographical problems.
First, we are going to develop the different senses that can be attributed to the term
place, since its complex and multifaceted nature makes necessary a reference to the
conceptualizations on which we are focusing. For that, we have selected two authors
whose theories about place date from this century and are framed in the context of the
globalization process. Secondly, we are going to refer to the identity of place and the
ways in which it can be experienced by the people. The positions as insiders or
outsiders and the authenticity required in order to experience the deep identity of
places constitute our focus in this section. Finally, the phenomenon of placelessness and
its possible relation with the process of globalization is our point of attention. Our
argument is that the process of placelessness described by Relph in 1976 can be
diagnosed in our relation to the identity of places in the context of globalization. Of
course, the depth with which we experience them and the ways in which we construct
our own identities in an interactive process are still our decision. As Massey indicates,
our views of place are products of the society in which we live and to that extent the
future of those views, even if constrained by circumstances, is in our hands (1995: 50).

1.

The concept of place


Place. Such a common concept, so present in our everyday life. A term with

essential effects on both our conscience of location and our own identity as belonging or
not to a place. One might think that such a concept would be relatively easy to define
and describe, Staeheli claims (2003: 158). But the large bibliography about it, focusing
on different aspects of the notion of place, can make us realise that it could easily be one
of the most contested terms in human geography. The feelings evoked by the term, the
different ways in which it has been used by the theorists and the importance of the
social roles in relation to place are some of the arguments given by Staeheli to explain
the complexity and variety of shades about the concept.
The Dictionary of Human Geography can be one of the first sources to try to
clarify which are the different senses that we can attribute to place. It is defined as a
portion of geographic space (Johnston et al., 2000: 582), a concise conceptualization
which already signals the relevance of the relation between space and place. Another list
of different meanings can be found looking up a non-geographical source like the
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Twelve entries come to our screen if we key the
word place. Physical environment and a particular part of a surface or body are
some of the definitions included in that list.
Given the multifaceted nature of the term and the large variety of sources
providing different interpretations, our development of the concept of place is focused
on two recent authors who pay special attention to the context of globalization: Castree
and Staeheli.
On the one hand, Castree (2003: 167) goes back to Agnews theory (1987) to
frame the concept of place into three basic definitions:

a location or specific point on the earths surface

a set of feelings that people have about place (sense of place)

a locale where peoples actions and interactions are developed

Castree points out that the second and third definitions emerged as a challenge to the
first in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, since when there have been attempts to synthesize
them. It could be interesting to relate the second definition with the concept sense of
spatial action, which can be understood as the set of reasons for and sense of the human
actions that determine the socio-spatial processes. Regarding to it, the behavioural and
behaviourist approaches, the Marxist approach and the structuralist approach have in
3

common that they all explain the societal dynamics from the concept of action. In
relation to the conception of place as locale, Castree mentions the importance of taking
into account both the uniqueness and the shared features of the places, more and more
interconnected around the world.
On the other hand, Staeheli (2003: 159-163) examines five conceptualizations of
place:

as physical location or site

as cultural and/or social location

as the context to something or someone

as constructed over time (a history holder)

as social process

1) Place as physical location or site. This is for the author the most obvious definition
of place, since it is something material and bounded.
2) Place as cultural and/or social location. As Staeheli points out, people are located
within webs of cultural, social, economic, and political relationships that shape their
identities (2003: 160). So there is a metaphorical framing of place in this conception,
often related to cultural studies, feminism and identity politics. The author mentions
Cresswells theories about the process through which some people and activities are
seen as belonging to certain kinds of places, as being in place.
3) Place as context. Context is understood by the geographers as the way in which
social, political, economic and cultural relations attach to space and place and,
secondarily, to people. They emphasize the importance of compositional and contextual
effects and the process of mediation realized by place between individuals, social
groups and political structures (Staeheli, 2003: 161). In fact, the author illustrates the
implication of context in political behaviour: first, it shapes meanings, or interpretative
frames, of events for different actors, and second, it provides resources for action
(2003: 167).
4) Place as socially constructed over time. The concept of place as resulted of the set
of activities constantly remaking it is defended from this perspective. The recognition of
both the interaction between the geographical and physical characteristics and the webs
of broader relations within the place is located in relation to individuals let this
conception of place, as dynamic and changing (Staeheli, 2003: 161). The idea that the
social, economic and political processes involved in place-making in the past are
4

significant, not determinant of, to place-making in contemporary periods lies behind this
definition. As such, a tension between continuity and change is implied in this
conceptualization, Staeheli claims (2003: 162).
5) Place as social process. In contrast to the previous definitions, in which place
is considered as a result or outcome, here the author considers the concept as always
becoming, that is, as something in permanent process. The interaction between
processes operating at different dimensions into the processes of place is emphasized in
this conceptualization. This has the advantage of situating places within the global
economy and nation, as well as with regard to other places, Staeheli points out (2003:
163). Furthermore, this definition can be related to the concept of spatiality, since it is
a subjective quality that we attribute to the things, creating space. So, there is a process
of social construction: spatiality is only existing if we perceive it, if we attribute it to
something.
In our opinion, this last concept of place is the most innovative definition and the
best to be used in a world in which the economic, social and politic processes interact
more and more at different scales. As Scholte mentions, in the globalization the patterns
become increasingly delinked from a geography of territorial distances and territorial
borders (2001: 525), something that can be related to the concept of global village
described by McLuhan, in which the communication technologies let the people interact
in a global scale. Because of that, the conception of place as a process, always turning
into, seems to us more adapted to the multiple interactions in which place is involved
nowadays. Furthermore, this definition doesnt deny all the previous, which can be
incorporated in this last one, more dynamic and involving.

To finish the conceptualization of place, it is necessary to notice the essential


relations that place has with the term space and with the term landscape:

Space- Place. The study of space and the relations that connect discrete
places have been the focus of spatial sciences. While place, understood as physical
location, appears as grounded and particular, space is seen as abstracted from the
particular. From his humanistic approach, the geographer Yi Fu Tuan describes space as
something abstract and interchangeable, whereas places appear as specific and imbued
with meaning. The experiential perspective is the base of his view: human beings
lived experiences make place exist. Nevertheless, the first dimension of place is
5

physical, since it is seen as grounded in the materiality. So we make places of spaces


through physically sensing, exploring and inhabiting them (1977: 48).
Massey (1995: 53) mentions Robbins and Giddens conception of the relation
between space and place nowadays. According to them, by the late 20th century, the
spatial movement, interaction, influenceand communication have become so fast and
available that the boundaries which used to define places as different and separable
from each other are so often blurred that the concept of place has to be rethought. The
changing social organization of space has, it is argued, disrupted our existing forms of,
and concepts of, place, Massey explains (1995: 54).

Landscape- Place. In the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary we can find


two definitions of landscape which establish an interesting relation with the concept of
place: landscape as (2b) a portion of territory that can be viewed at one time from one
place and as (2c) a particular area of activity. In the first conception, a specific and
grounded place becomes the necessary condition to obtain a particular landscape; and,
in the second, landscape as scene could be equivalent to place when the later is
understood as the locale of certain activities (Castree, 2003: 167).

2.

The identity of places


To try to analyse the ways in which the identity of places is constructed we are

going to base on Edward Relphs theory. Given that the third section of this paper is
focused on Relphs concept of placelessness in relation to globalization, we think that
its necessary a previous understanding of his view of places identity.
Edward Relph is a Canadian geographer whose career is characterised by the
critical observation and description of landscapes. His first book, Place and
placelessness (1976), was an important force in the emergence of the field of humanistic
geography amid the quantitative revolution of environmental determinism. This
monograph has been considered by The Canadian Association of Geographers (2003) a
kind of premonition in the current context of scholarly focus on globalization. That
association awarded Professor Relph the Scholarly Distinction in Geography,
emphasizing his use of concepts connected to every day life and his teaching task.
Rational Landscapes and Humanistic Geography (1984) and Modern Urban
Landscapes (1987) are his later books, although he continues to publish on topics like
suburban downtowns and methodology.
According to Relph, the identity of something is a persistent sameness and
unity which allows that thing to be differentiated from others (1976: 45). In the
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary we find the quality of oneness as one of the
synonyms of identity, understood as sameness in all that constitutes the objective
reality of a thing. But these senses cant make us forget that such inherent identity is
inseparable from the identity with other things (Relph 1976: 45). So we have to
emphasize the importance of both the identity of a place and the identity that a person or
group of people has with that place, what is related to their experience as outsiders or
insiders.

2.1. The components of identity of place


Three elements are mentioned by Relph as the components of identity: the
physical setting, the activities which are developed there and the meanings. While the
first two can be easily analysed, the third element is more difficult to seize, since it lies
on human intention and goals and can change and be transferred. Although we can
study these components as distinctive focuses with its own subdivisions, they are
inseparable interwoven in our experiences of places (Relph 1976: 47) and their fusion

is the identity of a place. Furthermore, the author mentions another dimension which is
more intangible but embraces the three components: sense of place. According to Rose
(1995: 88), the geographers use this term when they want to emphasize that places are
significant because they are the focus of personal feelings. As Relph notices, spirit of
place can remain even if the basic elements of identity experiment a change, so it can be
considered the very uniqueness of places.

2.2 Insideness and outsideness

Relphs theory doesnt focus so much in the components of identity of places as


it does in the fact that it can be experienced from outside or inside. To be inside a
place is to belong to it and to identify with it, and the more profoundly inside you are
the stronger is this identity with the place (Relph 1976: 49). The outside-inside
division can be explained in this way: if you are outside, you look upon a place as any
traveller might look upon a town from a distance, so there is a clear separation between
you and the place (you are not part of the place and it is not part of you); however, if
you are inside, you really experience the place, being surrounded by it and part of it.
In this sense, the dualism between in and out, simple but basic, determines to
a great extent the way in which we experience our live-space and, thus, our identity with
the places. But this dualism is fundamentally defined by our intentions and goals, so we
can change the boundaries of this division, varying then our condition of outsiders or
insiders. Depending on the intensity of the process of experiencing places, Relph
distinguishes seven levels or modes of feeling them:

1. Existential outsideness
This condition is characterised by the inability to take part in the meanings of the
places, giving them a meaningless identity and distinguishing them by their
superficial features. It implies a selfconscious and reflective uninvolvement, an
alienation from people and places, homelessness, a sense of the unreality of the
world, of not belonging (Relph 1976: 51).

2. Objective outsideness
When there is a profound separation of person and place and the latest is considered
in terms of its location and the objects and activities situated there, we can speak
about objective outsideness. It is an intellectual attitude with important presence in

academic geography and in the posture of places planners, guided by principles like
logic and efficiency.

3. Incidental outsideness
This type of experience perceives the places as an incidental background for a series
of activities. Here, our intentions towards place are limited to the activities located
there and we act as visitors. Such incidental outsideness is probably a feature of
everyones experience of places, for it is inevitable that what we are doing
frequently overshadows where we are doing it, as Relph mentions (1976: 52). To
establish a clear differentiation with behavioural insideness we can give an
illustrative example: while a businessman who travels around the world going to
meetings and conferences probably experiences incidental outsideness to the places
he visits, since they constitute only a fortuitous background; the tourist who travels
to Paris only to attend to its famous set of objects, buildings and views is
experiencing the insideness based on the appearance of the place: behavioural
insideness.

4. Vicarious insideness
This is a second hand way of experiencing places because it consists in being
transported there without actually visiting them. When we read travel accounts, look
at pictures or get in touch with any other medium we can experience this kind of
insideness towards real or fantasy places. In this case, both the artist or
communicators skills and our personal experiences and imaginative and empathetic
capacities play a fundamental role.

5. Behavioural insideness
This attitude is characterised by being in a place which is seen as a set of objects,
views, and activities arranged in certain ways and having certain observable
qualities (Relph 1976:53). The intention of attend to the appearance of the place is
present in this experience, in which the patterns, structures and content are the
elements that indicate us we are here and not somewhere else. In fact, the patterns of
our immediate experience, mainly those of visual nature, are essential in this type of
insideness.

6. Empathetic insideness
Relph points out the slight difference between behavioural and empathetic
insideness and explains that the second one happens when theres a change from the
focus on the appearance to emotional and empathetic involvement in a place
(1976: 54). While a behavioural insider looks at place as ambient environment, here
places are understood as expressions of the cultural values and experiences of those
who create and live in them. So a deliberate effort of perception is necessary in this
experience to go deeper than in behavioural insideness. Identity is not just an
address or set of appearances, but a complete personality with which the insider is
intimately associated (Relph 1976: 55).

7. Existential insideness
When we experience a place as full of meanings without selfconscious reflection,
we are feeling the most fundamental form of insideness: existential. It is usually
related to our home, city or region and it constitutes the complete identity with a
place. As Relph mentions, existential insideness is part of knowing implicitly that
this place is where you belong (1976: 55), so who doesnt have this experience of
identification with a place can be considered rootless.

3. Authentic and inauthentic sense of place

Understanding sense of place as the ability to recognise different places and


different identities of a place (Relph 1976: 63), we can make a distinction between
authentic and inauthentic or artificial sense of place. Although these notions have had a
long currency under different guises, its possible to relate them with the
phenomenology, a philosophical current that takes the intuitive experience of
phenomena (what presents itself to us in conscious experience) as its starting point and
tries to extract the essential features of experiences and the essence of what we
experience (Wikipedia). It emphasizes the intentionality (we always see the objects as
objects for something and look at the world with intentions) and brackets all
subjectivity. Philosophers like Husserl and Meleau-Ponty are some of the essential
figures of the phenomenological thought.
Relph claims that an authentic attitude to place is characterised by being a
direct and genuine experience of the entire complex of the identity of places (1976:
64), but he points out that the authentic sense of place can be both unselfconscious or

10

selfconscious. While the unselfconscious rises from the use of traditional solutions to
traditional situations, the selfconscious sense is based on a complete conception of man
and related to a process to reach some goals that can imply innovative solutions.
According to Relph (1976: 65), the highest level of authenticity occurs when the person
is inside and belonging to his/her place without reflecting upon it and has a genuine
experience not only as an individual but also as a member of a community.
On the contrary, the inauthentic sense of place comes from the inability to reach
an understanding of the complex and deep identity of places and implies a narrowminded attitude to the world and mans possibilities. Relph claims that it is difficult not
to judge inauthenticity negatively, for inauthentic existence is stereotyped, artificial,
dishonest, planned by others, rather than being direct and reflecting a genuine belief
system encompassing all aspects of existence (1976: 80). So the experiences of place
from an inauthentic attitude can be described as superficial, partial and causal and their
result is not other than the no sense of place.

11

3. Globalization and Placelessness


To a very considerable degree we neither experience nor create places with
more than a superficial and casual involvement (Relph 1976: 80). With these words,
pronounced more than a quarter of century ago, the author referred to the inauthentic
attitude of placelessness that he thought it was being widespread at that moment. The
increasing lack of both diverse landscapes and meaningful places made Relph to
appreciate our subjection to the forces of placelessness and the loss of our sense of
place (1976: 79). Although it could be easy to describe this attitude as undesirable but
concomitant to the modern world of technology and communications, in which the
tendency to homogenization seems to be unavoidable, the author warns about the
mistake of symplifing placelessness as a feature of the post-industrial world:
What is important is to recognise that placelessness is an attitude and an
expression of that attitude which is becoming increasingly dominant, and that it
is less and less possible to have a deeply felt sense of place or to create places
authentically. (Relph, 1976: 80)

This attitude of inauthenticity, which implies the unawareness of the deep


meanings of place and the non-perception of its identity, can be unselfconscious and
unreflective (like the tendency to the kitsch) or selfconscious and deliberate (like the
place planning founded on the assumption that space is uniform and can be freely
manipulated). Trying to analyze the processes through which the inauthentic experience
of place is transmitted and reinforced, the geographer mentions five phenomena which
do little or nothing to create and maintain significant and diverse places (1976: 90):
mass communication, mass culture, big business, central authority and economic
system. The startling fact is that these elements have won importance in the last thirty
years, becoming essential processes which reach global scales. Their flows interact in
our world, determining to a great extent the development of identities, also in relation to
places and the roles they play in the human life. In fact, the geographer and sociologist
Castells goes so far as to signal that the globalization, causing the end of the barriers
that make the places remain different, means also the end of place (Castree, 2003: 166).
But as Massey points out:

12

Our notions of place, and the meanings which the term carries, can vary in part
because the world itself is changing and it will also vary because of the shifts in
the ways in which different groups in society think about place. (1995: 50)

So our argument is that the understanding of places identity, not natural but
socially constructed, depends on the way in which we involve in them and capture their
essence. This process could certainly be dragged by the flows of the globalization if we
dont keep in mind the importance of a selfconscious and deliberate attempt of an
authentic attitude towards place. But perhaps this authenticity, so mentioned by Relph,
requires rethinking the concept of place from the recognition that globalization brings
new forms of place differentiation and that interconnection doesnt mean necessarily
homogeneity, but influence and enrichment.
At this point, it is interesting to mention the five reasons given by Castree (2003:
175) to explain how places can remain different in a globally interconnected world:

The permanence of the geographical distance in spite of the reduction of


the time to travel form one place to another.

Globalization has unfolded across a heterogeneous space, linking places


precisely because they are different (2003: 175).

Many places can react to the same global forces in very different ways.

Nowadays most of social relationships dont have a global reach,


remaining local.

A lot of places in the world remain out of this deep integration.

In fact, this author claims that the more linked places become, the more place
differences endure and are remade (2003: 176). His suggestion of rethinking the
identity of place as glocal can be taken into account as one of the perspectives from
which we can face the challenge of maintaining an authentic attitude to place in times of
globalization.

13

Bibliography

Abram, S. (1997) Tourists and tourism: identifying with people and place. Berg,
Oxford.

Castree, N. (2003) Connections and boundaries in an interdependent world. In:


Holloway, S.L., Rice, S.P. & Valentine, G. (eds.) Key Concepts in Geography.
Sage, London. pp. 165-186.

Cresswell, T. (1999) Place. In: Cloce, P. et al. (eds.) Introducing Human


Geographies. Arnold, London. pp. 226-234.

Edward Relph (2003) In: The Canadian Association of Geographers


http://www.cag-acg.ca/en/edward_relph.html

Hannerz, U. (1997) Transnational Connections. Routledge, London.

Holloway, L. & Hubbard, P. (2000) People and Place. Prentence Hall, Harlow.

Johnston R.J. et al. (2000) Dictionary oh Human Geography. Blackwell,


Oxford.

Massey, D. (1995) The Conceptualisation of Place. In: Massey, D. & Jess, P.


(eds.) A Place in the World? Oxford University Press, Oxford.

McDowell, L. (ed.) (1997) Undoing Place? Arnold, London.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2005-2006)


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/

Miller, D. (1998) Shopping, place and identity. Routledge, London.

Phenomenology (2006) In: Wikipedia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology

Relph, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness. Pion, London.

Scholte, J.A. (2001) Global Trade and Finance. In: Baylis and Smith (eds) The
globalization of world politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Staeheli, L. (2003) Place. In: Agnew, J., Mitchell, K. & Toal, G. (eds.) A
Companion to Political Geography. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 158-17.

Tuan, Yi-Fu, (1977) Space and Place. The Perspective of Experience. University
of Minnesota Press, Minesota.

14

Вам также может понравиться