Structurationist geography

From Geography

Werlen stated that stucturation theory insufficiently recognizes how interaction between the social and the spatial originates and therefore that stucturation theory cannot be adequately linked to geography.

stucturation theorystarts with space to study social life (which is in contradiction to its concept of agency), but does not adequately explain how spaces are created and how interaction between the social and spatial originates. This is because stucturation theory sees space as a pre-given fact as expressed in the concept of locale and region (Werlen, 2009, p.56). Put differently, under stucturation theory human actions are analyzed ‘in’ regions and not as region-building forces (Werlen, 2009, p. 54).

The structuration approach works well for traditional societies (which are temporally and spatially embedded) but not for late modern, globalized, societies (which are temporally and spatially disembedded).

To adequately link the interaction between the social and the spatial to geography, Werlen suggest that we should not start with space but with actions in studying human geography. On the basis of stucturation theory he develops what he calls a structurationist geography.

In late modern societies people interact over such great distances that it is difficult to define the spatial characteristics of social life (cultures, life styles, etc.). Therefore, instead of focussing on a specific space and study the actions related to that, structurationist geography starts with the study of actions and then determines the matching spaces and the interactions. This way structurationist geography gives insights into the ways agents ‘live the world’ and not how they live ‘in’ regions and(living) spaces (Werlen, 2009, p.58). Werlen refers to this process as world binding.

World binding explains how agents in their everyday lives try to draw distant, disembedded spaces to themselves by means of regionalization, appropriation and power relations. Regionalization in this sense is not the formation of space (as is the case with regionalisation under stucturation theory) but rather the appropriation of ‘terrestrially classified objects that are of central interest’ to the agent (e.g. the appropriation of goods and control over subjects over a distance) (Werlen p. 57). World binding in a way has therefore become a process of re-embedding sociocultural realities in spatial relations.

References

Lippuner, R. & Werlen, B. (2009) Structuration Theory. In: International Encyclopedia for Human Geography. Elsevier.

Werlen, B. (2009) Structurationist Geography. In: International Encyclopedia for Human Geography. Elsevier.

Contributors

Published by Robbert Wilmink --RobbertWilmink 09:22, 11 October 2011 (CEST)