"Space' and 'Place' are familiar words denoting common experiences. We live in space. There is no space for another building on the lot. The Great Plains look spacious. Place is security, space is freedom: we are attached to one and long for the other. There is no place like home. What is home? It is the old homestead, the old neighbourhood, hometown, or motherland. Geographers study places. Planners would like to evoke 'a sense of place'. These are unexceptional ways of speaking. Space and place are basic components of the lived world; we take them for granted. When we think about them, however, they may assume unexpected meanings and raise questions we have not thought to ask."
 |
| Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience by Yi-Fu Tuan |
I have long been intrigued by this book, due to both its premise and its reputation (Tuan is credited as being one of the, if not the, founders of Human Geography as a discipline), and also admittedly given the price - £12 for 203 pages. My intrigue eventually won over the ludicrous Amazon price (cost-benefit analysis: intellectual reputation vs. 6p a page), and here we are. It's a book/essay-published-as-a-book of unconventional matter, dealing with something utterly commonplace and everyday in an utterly stimulating, abnormal way. It's 203 pages of intellectual workout, of existential challenge and introspective analysis. I was disappointed however by the lack of a coherent argumentative thread running throughout the text and no summative conclusion (one could argue that the Prologue serves this role); although the common theme of exploring 'space' and 'place' with regards to experience was present throughout, I found each chapter often narrated something largely unrelated to the former chapter. Such made Tuan's argument harder to follow. Nevertheless, he proposed a multitude of interesting observations and ideas with regards to the relationship between us and the physical world. One thing I can conclude for certain: Yi-Fu Tuan is so clever in his perceptions of the world.
Space is defined by the Oxford dictionary as 'a continuous area or expanse which is free, available or unoccupied', 'an interval of time' and 'the dimensions of height, depth and width within which all things exist and move'. Place on the contrary is defined as 'a particular position, point or area in space' and 'a portion of space designated or available for or being used by someone'. In other words: space is place unoccupied and natural, and place is space inhabited and moulded. This relationship makes up much of the premise of 'Space and Place', but it is the influence of humans upon these identities which so captivates Tuan. He argues that it is humans that construct place; be it physically or mentally, by dominating space it is extricated from place. Just think about it: were you to walk through an empty, uncultivated, undeveloped field in the middle of nowhere, you wouldn't associate it with the identity of place, would you? You'd probably complain about being stuck in the middle of nowhere; about being lost. Fundamentally, you are in an unknown, unclaimed area - you are in space. Some may further associate the field's lack of identity with freedom - space to breathe mentally and physically, free of societal constraints. It's like our accepted identification of the universe around us as space - why is it called space? Because it is/was the unknown. Now imagine that some of the field is cleared and a few houses are built there. It's no longer just space; it's no longer the middle of nowhere. Constructing human meaning through infrastructural entities has imposed an identity to the area, and hence it has become a place in the physical sense. Conversely, erase the building construction and clearance from your mind. Imagine now that you have found your way out of the field and are at home contemplating the day's experience; the field is no longer just a space as it was when you were there, for it holds psychological significance for you as the place where you got lost or experienced this, that or the other. In both cases, it is the interposition of human meaning onto the space that has developed it into a place. How does this impact the composition of areas demographically and physically?
"In the nineteenth century many Europeans abandoned their small farms, crowded dwellings, and polluted cities for the virgin lands of the New World. We rightly interpret the migration as motivated by the desire to seek opportunities in a freer and more spacious environment. Another major flow of people in both Europe and North America was from the countryside and small settlements to the large cities. We tend to forget that rural-urban migration, like the earlier movement across the ocean and into the New World, could also be motivated by the impulse to escape crowding. Why did country people, especially the young, leave their small hometowns for the metropolitan centres? One reason was that the hometown lacked room. The young considered it crowded in an economic sense because it did not provide enough jobs, and in a psychological sense because it impose too many social constraints on behaviour. The lack of opportunity in the economic sphere and of freedom in the social sphere made the world of the isolated rural settlement seem narrow and limited. Young people abandoned it for the jobs, the freedom, and - figuratively speaking - the open spaces of the city." - page 60
All the processes of population movement - migration, urbanisation, de-urbanisation, re-urbanisation, suburbanisation, emigration (and so the list goes on) - can be linked back to the perception of space and place. Figuratively, urban places more cluttered with infrastructural entities and constructions are likely (though not exclusively) to attract people in the working age cohort, demographically young and searching for more socio-political and economic opportunities; such arises as place, rather than space, is associated with job opportunities, higher service provision (recreational or otherwise) and greater socio-political freedom. On the contrary, the retired population may be more attracted to rural areas given the greater abundance of physical space enabling a slowing down of time, greater relaxation and freedom. Such an idea as put forward by Tuan on page 60 (see above quote) has its limitations however. For both cohorts of the population - though most predominantly the elderly - place as identified psychologically may hold greater significance than physical place/space (remember the field associated with a day of getting lost?); were one to have grown up in a particular type of area or country or subsequently experienced a place which holds emotional memories, or perhaps know of a place of cultural and historical heritage/significance, one may sense a longing to re-inhabit (or in the latter case: inhabit) said place. In such instances, the physical construction of the area is irrelevant - it is the psychological significance which demands its importance. Tuan uses the example of a castle: a random castle on a hill may evoke a sense of awe architecturally, but such is not enough to draw any meaning from the space. But, were Macbeth to have supposedly lived there, the castle takes on a new entity of significance and meaning, thereby earning the psychological relevance and attraction of a place. Hence, our perception of an area has a lot to do with its significance with regards to our sense of identity. Such may act as a catalyst for migration, or it may result in the construction of institutions to further support our sense of meaning.
I had never really questioned the role nor existence of museums before reading Tuan's own musings on the matter. To me, they were always exciting places allowing an insight into the past; the closest way to experience centuries gone-by firsthand. When you think about it, they, as well as other institutions such as art galleries or constructions like statues, serve the purpose of upholding our sense of identity. Identity may entail culture, heritage, intellectual discoveries and achievements, industry, notable historical events like wars... whatever it is that makes us feel more place than irrelevant space. Even before museums were opened mankind has felt the need to support their sense of identity through physical representation by painting on the walls of caves, by inscribing tree trunks, or by writing journals. We not only associate meanings to spaces through physical constructions or psychological associations therefore, but also construct spaces to preserve our sense of place. As confusing as it may seem (this is no easier to write than to read!), space and place are inextricably linked in a relationship of many dynamics. Out of this desire to support our identity through constructions of space often rises love of a homeland. 'Homeland' (see page 154 for greater reference) may refer to feelings regarding a neighbourhood, county, region, country or even an empire; it may be localised or nationalised, it may be admirable, or it may be extreme. Tuan makes no such explicit link himself, but as I read of his suggestion that this 'love of a homeland' results out of man's feelings of frailty and inferiority individually with an inability to support and preserve a strong sense of identity himself, I immediately thought of geopolitics, and more specifically, World War Two (and even more specifically, Hitler).
Geopolitics refers to the relationship between politics and geography (as well as demography and economics), with particular study into the foreign policy of a nation, otherwise recognised as a Nazi doctrine maintaining that the geographic, economic and political needs of Germany justified its invasion and seizure of other lands. One of Hitler's motivations for Germany to eventually dominate the world is thought to be rooted in his irrefutable sense of national pride arising itself from his personal feelings of 'frailty' in identity after his experience in WW1, particularly with the defeat of his beloved nation. As the Nazi campaign gained momentum and power, so too did Hitler's sense of identity. Be it Hitler's radicalised sense of nationalism, or someone's pride in their nation winning the rugby world cup, place supports our sense of identity.
"We may say that deeply-loved places are not necessarily visible, either to ourselves or to others. Places can be made visible by a number of means: rivalry or conflict with other places, visual prominence, and the evocative power of art, architecture, ceremonials and rites. Human places become vividly real through dramatisation. Identity of place is achieved by dramatising the aspirations, needs, and functional rhythms of personal and group life." - page 178
Whilst place is therefore security, something we are attached to, space is perhaps freedom, something we simultaneously long for. Tuan illustrates the division perfectly through an exploration of time and our conception of time in relation to area. When in a place, time is well documented in clocks, ageing, work, everyday routines and other measures of activity; yet when we go on holiday, time stands still. The two weeks we spend dreaming of throughout the year are often conceived, subconsciously, not as happening in a place but in a space; we go there to escape time; when we leave, we do not imagine time continuing nor the people who live in the area going on with their daily lives, but rather the place ceases to exist until the following year. In this sense, place is extrapolated from a space through our subconscious conceptual constraints regarding time. At the other end of the spectrum, take the example of what Tuan refers to as 'modern nomads' (page 158) - I love this concept and would never have thought of it, yet it makes so much sense, ah! - namely sailors, migrant workers and hoboes. Sailors for instance live a life at sea and this is the space that they occupy; the place that they desire and long for however, is a base on the ground 'at home' of which an image immune to time can be conjured in particularly desolate or home-sick moments. In essence: where we are, time exists and place is identified; where we are not becomes space and time stands still.
Another element of space/place explored by Tuan revolved around the identity of place as another person. Connoting the quote 'home is where the heart is', or more specifically 'home is wherever I'm with you', is the idea that we feel a sense of place in another person. Tuan predominantly referenced the idea in terms of paternal and romantic relationships, but I think it also applies to relationships between humans in general; when we are with friends or family, we generally feel safe and have a strong sense of identity, yet when we are surrounded by people we don't know, we feel more unsure and less relaxed.
Tuan conclusively surmises that our conception of space and place and how we react and interact with these concepts is intricately linked to our own sense of perception and identity. It is such a dynamic relationship. I hope this post wasn't too incoherent or haphazard - I don't blame Tuan so much now for having no explicitly clear thread of argument running throughout his text; the subject matter is so expansive and varied!
Until next time,
C
No comments:
Post a Comment