Everyday regionalisation
From Geography
SimonTjoonk (Talk | contribs) m |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | == Everyday regionalization == | |
| - | Thus, rather than regarding regions as 'containers' of human activities, it is suggested to view them as | + | [[Regionalisation|Regionalization]] as part of the term discussed here should be understood correctly: Unlike the traditional definition which implies “an academic practice of spatial delimitation of natural, social, economic, cultural, or political spheres of reality” (Werlen, 2009a, p. 1) regionalization refers to “[[everyday practice]]” and the use of spatial reference to structure the diverse realities (ibid.). This is where the concept "Everyday regionalizations" comes from: the concept elaborated in action-centered [[structurationist geography]] (not to be confused with structuralist) or even '[[action-centered social geography]]', by scholars with a background in German-speaking geography, social theory and philosophy. At its roots it accepts that ultimately, it is in individual human beings as acting subjects that the dynamics for all social life occurs. How space is treated in this approach is crucial and differs significantly from older forms of regional geography. In the study of regions, it requests researchers to take serious note of what is referred to as "[[geography-making]]": how human beings mark out - through their ideas and practices - what they evidently regard and act upon as meaningful places or 'regional' entities. In that sense the theory relies very much on constructionism, since meaning of the real world is regarded to b constituted by “(inter-)subjective […] processes” (ibid.). Realities then cannot exist “independently from their constituting processes” (ibid.). |
| + | Thus, rather than regarding regions as 'containers' of human activities, it is suggested to view them as thought-and practice constructs of people for whom, for whatever reason, they come to matter and are used by them. Therefore, Werlen came to write about 'everyday regionalizations' (ibid., pp. 1-2). | ||
| - | [[Benno Werlen]] in his paper ' | + | [[Benno Werlen]] in his paper on 'Everyday regionalizations' (2009a) argues that regional analysis investigating relations between 'place' and 'subject' have to be given up and should rather focus on the acting of the subjects - a change from '[[regional geography]]' ([[contextual geography]]) to the geographical exploration of 'everyday regionalization' processes (the social use of “place-referred symbols and markings”) (ibid., p. 8). |
| - | + | Therefore a crucial argument of Werlen is that analysis of regionalization processes should not be limited to the reconstruction of actually existing political regions, this being the case for the [[new regional geography]] (searching law-like patterns) (ibid.). Instead, utilization of structuration theory for geographical investigation of socio-cultural universes has to focus on processes of everyday regionalizations, referring to action and centering around subjects (ibid.). This is indeed then one of the most challenging duties of structurationist geography, but also contemporary [[Human geography|Human Geography]] in today's globalising times (Werlen, 2009b, Structurationist Geography). | |
| - | + | This 'making of spatial differences' and 'categorizing places' can be analysed on basis of the [[three levels of analysis of regionalisation]]. The first level of analysis is the productive-consumptive level, which is the goal rational dimension of the analysis. Regarding this level, we have to look at, for example, households, companies, shops and transport of the region. When you look at the second level, the political-normative level, we can look at power/control relations, social movements or countries and borders of a region. This level corresponds to the norm-oriented an value rational dimension of the analysis. Last, the informative-significative level is the communicative rational dimension of the analysis of regionalisation. To analyze this dimension one has to look at for example the identity, the image or knowledge of a region (Ernste, personal communication, 2012). | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | ==== | + | ---- |
| - | * page created by Kolar Aparna--[[User: | + | |
| + | == '''References''' == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Ernste, H. (2012). Personal communication, Spatial Action: Classical Action Theories. September 14th 2012 | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Werlen, B. (2009a). Everyday Regionalisations. Elsevier. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Werlen, B. (2009b). Structurationist Geography. Elsevier. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == '''Contributors''' == | ||
| + | |||
| + | * page created by Kolar Aparna--KolarAparna 11:23, 10 October 2011 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * enhanced by Janna Völpel s3015041[[User:JannaVolpel|JannaVolpel]] 14:56, 7 May 2012 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * enhanced by Malou van Woerkum. 6 october 2012 | ||
| + | * ''Links added by Jesper Remmen'' --[[User:JesperRemmen|JesperRemmen]] 13:49, 22 October 2012 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 10:04, 24 October 2012
Everyday regionalization
Regionalization as part of the term discussed here should be understood correctly: Unlike the traditional definition which implies “an academic practice of spatial delimitation of natural, social, economic, cultural, or political spheres of reality” (Werlen, 2009a, p. 1) regionalization refers to “everyday practice” and the use of spatial reference to structure the diverse realities (ibid.). This is where the concept "Everyday regionalizations" comes from: the concept elaborated in action-centered structurationist geography (not to be confused with structuralist) or even 'action-centered social geography', by scholars with a background in German-speaking geography, social theory and philosophy. At its roots it accepts that ultimately, it is in individual human beings as acting subjects that the dynamics for all social life occurs. How space is treated in this approach is crucial and differs significantly from older forms of regional geography. In the study of regions, it requests researchers to take serious note of what is referred to as "geography-making": how human beings mark out - through their ideas and practices - what they evidently regard and act upon as meaningful places or 'regional' entities. In that sense the theory relies very much on constructionism, since meaning of the real world is regarded to b constituted by “(inter-)subjective […] processes” (ibid.). Realities then cannot exist “independently from their constituting processes” (ibid.). Thus, rather than regarding regions as 'containers' of human activities, it is suggested to view them as thought-and practice constructs of people for whom, for whatever reason, they come to matter and are used by them. Therefore, Werlen came to write about 'everyday regionalizations' (ibid., pp. 1-2).
Benno Werlen in his paper on 'Everyday regionalizations' (2009a) argues that regional analysis investigating relations between 'place' and 'subject' have to be given up and should rather focus on the acting of the subjects - a change from 'regional geography' (contextual geography) to the geographical exploration of 'everyday regionalization' processes (the social use of “place-referred symbols and markings”) (ibid., p. 8).
Therefore a crucial argument of Werlen is that analysis of regionalization processes should not be limited to the reconstruction of actually existing political regions, this being the case for the new regional geography (searching law-like patterns) (ibid.). Instead, utilization of structuration theory for geographical investigation of socio-cultural universes has to focus on processes of everyday regionalizations, referring to action and centering around subjects (ibid.). This is indeed then one of the most challenging duties of structurationist geography, but also contemporary Human Geography in today's globalising times (Werlen, 2009b, Structurationist Geography).
This 'making of spatial differences' and 'categorizing places' can be analysed on basis of the three levels of analysis of regionalisation. The first level of analysis is the productive-consumptive level, which is the goal rational dimension of the analysis. Regarding this level, we have to look at, for example, households, companies, shops and transport of the region. When you look at the second level, the political-normative level, we can look at power/control relations, social movements or countries and borders of a region. This level corresponds to the norm-oriented an value rational dimension of the analysis. Last, the informative-significative level is the communicative rational dimension of the analysis of regionalisation. To analyze this dimension one has to look at for example the identity, the image or knowledge of a region (Ernste, personal communication, 2012).
References
- Ernste, H. (2012). Personal communication, Spatial Action: Classical Action Theories. September 14th 2012
- Werlen, B. (2009a). Everyday Regionalisations. Elsevier.
- Werlen, B. (2009b). Structurationist Geography. Elsevier.
Contributors
- page created by Kolar Aparna--KolarAparna 11:23, 10 October 2011 (CEST)
- enhanced by Janna Völpel s3015041JannaVolpel 14:56, 7 May 2012 (CEST)
- enhanced by Malou van Woerkum. 6 october 2012
- Links added by Jesper Remmen --JesperRemmen 13:49, 22 October 2012 (CEST)
