Region
From Geography
One of the core concepts of geography, it is the outcome of academic or everyday practices of regionalisation. Traditionally, it is understood as a form of spatial delimitation of natural and/or sociocultural units. According to the spatial approach, it is the outcome of an academic procedure of formal classification, referring to spatial as well as social, economic, cultural, or political categories, producing meaningful units for different types of spatial politics or geographical analysis. In an action-centered perspective, the region signifies the result of everyday regionalisations as one of the key forms of everyday geography-making.
But it's very difficult to give one definition of the concept of region, because it's a comprehensive and various concept. There is still no consensus about the existing defenitions. It's depends on the perspective and scale you're looking at a region: local scale, national scale, international scale. Johnston et al. in Beaumont (2002) define region as a more or less restricted area having some unitary or distinguish with one or more specific organizational principles from other regions. The following citate is supporting this thought: '’Regions are understood as historically contingent structures whose institutionalization is based on their territorial, symbolic and institutional shaping’’ (Paasi, 2002, p. 137). So these people think that regions are systems with unopend relationships. But there are also people who argue that regions aren't systems with unopened relationships. Allen et al. in Pike et al. (2006) defines: ‘’Localities and regions as ‘unbounded’, especially where their influence and spatial reach is beyond their territorial boundaries, and relational, in that they are mutually constituted by wider webs of spatialised social relations’’ (p. 35). Also Whitehead (2007) defines h the concept of region in a relational way: '’A more flexible view of regions as discontinuous (or internally fragmented) and unbounded (or open) places’’(p. 142). Thus, in conclusion we can assume that a region are (sometimes) demarcated areas which distinguish from other areas and a region is (always) relational because they are mutually by wider webs of social relations.
But we can also define the concept of region when we look at different kinds of regions: formal or uniform regions, functional or nodal regions, vernacular regions and forgotten regions. And besides, there are some scientific approaches about the formation of the region, and at the same time it's a different way to define and analyse the concept of region. These scientific approaches are the territorial approach and the 'relational approach.
Contents |
Four kinds of regions exist
- Formal or uniform regions are regions defined by specific features of the region. An example is the Dutch province Friesland, where Frisian is spoken. This province can be defined as a region because of the feature 'Frisian language'. However, it can be argued that there is no Frisian region because not every single person of the Frisian population speaks Frisian. This leads to the statement that defining regions is highly interpretative and subjective
- The functional or nodal region is defined by the linkages binding phenomena in that region. Which phenomena are important depends on our interests. A region can be defined by financial transactions, political linkages etc.
- Vernacular regions are defined by peoples vague ideas of a region without clear borders, for example the Middle East
- Forgotten regions: regions which existed once, but have now fallen into oblivion.
Two scientific approaches of regions
The first approach is the territorial approach. In this approach region is seen as an demarcated area, which distinguish from other areas (Paasi, 2002). A process of institutionalization underlies to the formation of a region. In this process there are known four phases, made by Paasi (2002). In the first phase, called the territorial phase, there is a growing collective attention for spatial delineation. The region is getting borders, which creates a regional identity. In the second phase, called the symbolic phase, typical economic, cultural and political characterizes are bounded in one idenntity. For example, the language, the history, the culture and certain landscapes. In the thirth phase, called the institutional phase, the region is developing themselve further. This means that the developments of the first and second phases are getting institutionalized in the region. This institutionalization exists to create a distinction between this region and other areas. In the fourth phase, called the anchorage- or transformation phase, there is anchorage or awareness of the region. The region is recognized as a region by insiders and outsiders of the region.
The second approach is the relational approach. In this approach regions are connected and are having a wider web of social relations (Pike et al., 2006). These webs can be economic, political, social and cultural. Regions do not develop independently, but they develop together with other regions because they are bounded in a wider web.
So, in conclusion we can say that these two approaches are totally different. But this kind of approaches are necessary, because the concept of region is a comprehensive and various concept.
References
- Beaumont, J. (2005), ‘Territoria, Relaties en Stromen: Regiopolitiek in een Tijdperk van Globalisering’, Stedebouw & Ruimtelijke Ordening, (2), pp. 10-19.
- Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M. & Whatmore, S. (2009). The dictionary of human geography. Wiley-Blackwell.
- Paasi, A. (2002), ‘Bounded Spaces in the Mobile World: Deconstructing ‘’Regional Identity’’, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93 (2), pp. 137-148.
- Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Tomaney, J. (2006), Local and Regional Development. London: Routledge.
- Werlen, B. (2009) Everyday Regionalisations. Entry in: International Encyclopedia for Human Geography. Elsevier.
- Whitehead, M. (2007), Spaces of Sustainability: Geographical Perspectives on the Sustainable Society. London: Routledge.
Contributors
- Page published by Fenki Evers & Anton de Hoogh - ...
- Page enhanced by Marleen Revenberg - ...
