Being in space vs. living through space

From Geography

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

You can view and copy the source of this page:

==Being in space vs. living through space== There exists a discussion about the way geography, regional geography, has to be interpreted and approached. Nowadays the main critique on scientists that until thus far have determined the discourse on how it should be interpreted, is that a different order of categories and another conception of space is necessary to achieve a proper subject-centered geographical research. The main swing is from an [[structure]] based approach to an [[agency]] based approach. If this new way of research is to be achieved, there is need for a conception of space that is compatible with both the [[ontology]] of the social world and the agency capacity of human beings as social actors. The focus should be more on the subject, not on space, place or region. The subject should be the center of the research. Also the production of regional knowledge (academic knowledge about regions) must no longer be the aim, but a tool to help understand processes of regionalization. The structure approach states that there is a set of stable and stabilizing patterns of social life tha shape human agency. Therefore the term being in in space is used. Individuals operate within a set of fixed patterns. On the other hand there is agency. In this theory people are put central. In this view the spatiality of human actions are put at the central focus. Regions are created by and through human beings and human actions. In a sense, individuals are operating ‘living through space’. ---- ==References== Werlen, B. (2009) Structurationist Geography. In Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Jena, Germany. Elsevier, 2009 ==Page contributors== Page created: Kamiel Nuijens Page improved: Kamiel Nuijens page enhanced by KamielNuijens (25-10-2012)

Return to Being in space vs. living through space.