Humanism
From Geography
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Latour (1993) claims that there are phenomena which can not explained by the humanistic approach. For instance global warming, genetic engineering and deforestation cannot be understood properly within the confines of humanist orientations. He claims that this approach is hopelessly assymetrical and one-sided in giving value, importance and causal power exclusively. Latour claims that the humanistic approach ignores the importance of networks and relations (Aitken & Valentine, 2006, p. 34). | Latour (1993) claims that there are phenomena which can not explained by the humanistic approach. For instance global warming, genetic engineering and deforestation cannot be understood properly within the confines of humanist orientations. He claims that this approach is hopelessly assymetrical and one-sided in giving value, importance and causal power exclusively. Latour claims that the humanistic approach ignores the importance of networks and relations (Aitken & Valentine, 2006, p. 34). | ||
| - | The humanist movement has been attacked by different approaches as being fiction, a construction used by those representing false universal claims about humanity. These universal claims about human condition were for example stained by privileged cultural elites and other differentiating qualities (Aitken & Valentine, 2006, p. 35). | + | The humanist movement has been attacked by different approaches as being fiction, a construction used by those representing false universal claims about humanity. These universal claims about human condition were for example stained by privileged cultural elites and other differentiating qualities (Aitken & Valentine, 2006, p. 35). For instance some people think humanism is fictional, Eurocentric, racist and focused on man instead of woman (Aitiken & Valentine, 2009). |
Revision as of 14:20, 12 September 2012
Contents |
Humanism
Humanism is a tradition of thought (Cloke et al, 1999, p. 59) which forms the basis to humanistic geography. Only through long-lasting and complicated, multidimensional debate humanistic ideas could enter geography (ibid., p. 58), which especially took place during the 60s and 70s of last century. This paragraph is designed to understand the humanistic tradition, giving background information also to the concept of Humanistic Geography (see also Humanistic Geography).
Humanist tradition is often traced back to the intellectual shift in Europe during “Renaissance” (ibid., p. 61): The shift was about replacing the medieval belief with God as a center of cosmic order by a world-view in which belief in schooling, cultural achievement and sciences gave a more central place to human beings and their intellectual capabilities (ibid.). This led to the invention of the notion of the “human subject” as something active and basic to human action and thought (ibid., p. 61). Renaissance humanism was founded by Petrarca and placed man in the centre of human action. According to his stream of thought humans should be able to explore their freedom.
Humanism thought is thus based on the belief that the world and knowledge about it are “nothing but the sum of human experience” (ibid., p. 58). This is linked to the assumption that one can only know “by the resources of mind” (ibid.). In that sense all sources (written or oral) or knowledge are products of humans who can be regarded as “´medium` […][to] comprehension of […] reality […] at all” (ibid.). However, this implicates that human beings are limitations and a barrier to their external reality as well (ibid.) – thus knowledge is dependent of human capabilities to understand the world. Experience and process in mind are therefore central to humanist inquiry (ibid., p. 59). Humanity of the investigator is seen as the starting point of knowing, but also subject to research – as attribute of human beings- at the same time (ibid.). A practical dimension of those ideas is the aim of the approach to contribute to mobilization of “resources of the human mind” (ibid.) in order to “making the world a better place for people to live in” (ibid.) by ”understanding ourselves, others and the world we share” (Cosgrove, 1989).
The approach can be considered to be characterised by four subjects: Human awareness, human agency, human consciousness and human creativity.
Critique on the humanistic approach
There is some critique about the humanistic approach in geography.
Latour (1993) claims that there are phenomena which can not explained by the humanistic approach. For instance global warming, genetic engineering and deforestation cannot be understood properly within the confines of humanist orientations. He claims that this approach is hopelessly assymetrical and one-sided in giving value, importance and causal power exclusively. Latour claims that the humanistic approach ignores the importance of networks and relations (Aitken & Valentine, 2006, p. 34).
The humanist movement has been attacked by different approaches as being fiction, a construction used by those representing false universal claims about humanity. These universal claims about human condition were for example stained by privileged cultural elites and other differentiating qualities (Aitken & Valentine, 2006, p. 35). For instance some people think humanism is fictional, Eurocentric, racist and focused on man instead of woman (Aitiken & Valentine, 2009).
References:
Cloke, P., Philo, C., Sadler, D. (1999). Approaching Human Geography. Paul Chapman: London, 57-92.
Aitken S, Valentine G, 2009, Approaches to Human Geography. SAGE: California, London, New Delhi, Singapore
Spatial Action, Huib Ernste, 2010
Cloke P, Philo C, Sadler D 1999, Approaching Human Geography,
Published
by Robbert Vossers (4080939)
Edited by Fenki Evers and Anton de Hoogh 08-09-2011
Edited by Thadeus Bergé, 12-11-2011
Links added by Pauline van Heugten
edited already in October actually by Janna Völpel s3015041 13:05, 8 May 2012 (CEST)
Edited by Bert Hegger, 06-09-2012
Edited by Lotte den Boogert 12-09-12
