Territory, Place ,Region
I may have already quoted from David Harvey's Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom but it is amazingly relevant to many of the topics I have been posting about lately and the position of my esteemed "commentors". I'm thinking of Kultur's emphasis on the paradigmatic shift from forage to farm and the relation of culture to land use. Yodood stresses a place-based ecological "awakening" as do various communalist theorists like Murray Bookchin and certain "deep ecologists".Some go so far as to say landscapes sculpt identity and "moral character". I believe it can be argued that the Celebrating Conservatives I wrote about have a regional, sentimental "rootedness" that motivates them ( for good or ill) and the Zapatistas who I learned about last night have a conception of place that is both anthropological in the indigenous sense and political in the "ejido" sense. I am writing a novel about Israel-Palestine in which territory is certainly central and it occurs to me the latest IWW " historical re-creation" we had a couple weeks ago was also about a certain claim to place, our Free Speech corner and the struggle over memory and record which all monuments embody.
Everyone is wedded to some notion of place, or home or dwelling (Heigegger). "From the Mountains , to the Prairies..."to the Fatherland and Homeland, there is tons of mythological baggage which goes along with a very real notion of "bounded togetherness" ( Burke). Kultur astutely links the spatial with the temporal, introducing the relation between a lost "ecstatic" way of living and the fear of death associated with linear time. Bookchin introduces relationality in the form of democratic politics to make his localism more dynamic. The Conservatives try to ignore away the dialectical tension ( mostly due to Christian dogma) and cling to static notions of time and space resulting in their incoherent critiques of globalization and the "New World Order". The Zapatistas are aware of romantic, commodified indigenous-ness exemplified by bright skirted women doing native dances for the tourists and selling "authentic" trinkets.They stress autonomy and dignity but remain surrounded by tanks, troops and an encroaching capitalist culture.
Advanced capitalism knows no boundaries, could care less about maps ( unless fighting a war) and moves vast quantities of money ( power) around at the speed of light. Time is literally money and visa versa! In this sense, as Hardt and Negri point out, it is cosmopolitan and affects the nature of the old nation/state. But as it globe trots it builds walls and fences and enclosures behind it and leaves in it's destructive wake a scorched earth and armies of dispossessed. As Harvey says " The final victory of capitalist modernity is not the disappearance of the nonmodern world , but it's artificial preservation and reconstruction..."
Ive got a ways to go but for now he leaves us with this: ...those who proclaim, with Aristotle, that there is some essentialist theory of place (genius loci), that "place is the first of all things" or who hold ,with Heidegger, that "place is the locale of the truth of being" (though not of becoming) are plainly mistaken." He says place is contingent and dynamic and a process that social movements must shape before it is to late.

8 Comments:
Trout,
I could never imagine you would get "place-based" out of my desire for symbiosis with the environment. This arises from feeling at "home" in nature with no reference to any attachment to material location beyond the body, which feels free to go anywhere. I can see why you struggle — with your own misinterpretations in many cases.
Word varification: unmen - those who cannot exist alone.
Place is an organic connection to home, the body's sense of its natural belonging. The space articulated or managed by a social movement is not place, but a creation of political craft. It is a theatre of action, a stage for the Spectacle to be played out. This is historical, civilized space and time; it is history and biography. Place is timeless, it is more mythological in its grounding, and not so much historical. The Russian Revolution was played out in an historical space; but Mama Rodnia, is a mythological feeling of a Russian's sense of at-home-ness, of his place in the world. Just like indigenous tribes identifying themselves with their locale 'the forest people', the moutain people', 'the river people.' These are not stages of historical, political action, but the place from which a people emerge and live.
just some thoughts, under the influence!!
Maybe later I will reflect on Heidegger and homelessness, Das Man, and inauthenticity; but I think a more fruitful approach would be to consider Maurics Merleau-Ponty, and the body subject as constituting its place in the world.
Yodood, sorry if I misrepresented your views on society, or the optimum size/shape of social groupings.
kultur: Take a place like New York city.Are you saying an infant abducted and raised in Tehran would have a "body sense of belonging" as soon as it entered the city? or that place is a static entity, unaffected by space-time? Isn't part of "organic" also a construction which is contested?
Harvey suggests we use "Ground Zero" as an example of the many dimensions of geographical "place" ( though N Y is the same) It is an absolute space (on a map) but relative (close to center of global capital flows Wall Street) in terms of possible re-engineering. It is also a construct and full of contested meanings, history, future, and value in the Marxian sense(immaterial but objective).
what "place" would you construct to realize your own utopian ideal? is the question he ultimately asks.
Advanced capitalism knows no boundaries, could care less about maps ...(around at the speed of light. ...But as it globe trots it builds walls and fences and enclosures behind it and leaves in it's destructive wake a scorched earth and armies of dispossessed.
Since I have an advanced degree in geography, does that make me an expert on "place?" Noooo, I don't think so, but I think about it a lot. And my work is all about maps, digital ones, so I had to comment on your passage shown above.
I find it strange that you, an avowed radical, should be buying the wares peddled by no less a "stooge" of the establishment than Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes. This is basically his "the world is flat" idea, restated. We all know that capitalism dissolves barriers and structures as the market grows and draws more into its orbit, but the world is NOT flat...in Friedman's sense. It is NOT an abstract network across which capital and goods move freely. Not only that, anyway. The world is remarkably "spiky." There a specific places that benefit royally from this system - Wall Street, Mumbai, etc. - and many areas that are sloughs of poverty and undevelopment. Why the 'haves' are here rather than there is what [economic] geography is all about. Place ALWAYS matters, or perhaps we should say, places are never all the same.
As a somewhat relevant annecdote on a vaguely related subject, language buffs, pedants, and experts thought, at one time, that the variety of regional dialects in America would dwindle under the impact of that bete noir, the mass media. They have found them to be remarkably resilient because people learn to speak, and feel more comfortable speaking like the people the grew up with and around than those they see in the movies or on TV. Place again...
Yes, I know that lots of languages are going extinct as indigenous cultures disappear, but that's a different story. Latin is dead too...
Lichanos: I would enjoy your critique of the book. Friedmans "flatness" is juxtaposed against Kants sphere ( the finite quality of the globe defines limits within which human beings, by virtue of common possession, are forced to accommodate each other) yet both promote a certain problematic type of cosmopolitanism.
Friedmans cosmopolitanism is thinly veiled neoliberalism but his goofy metaphor for ease of capital flows is not the deceit. He could have gone with Walt Disney and said "its a small world after all".
His technological determinism leads him to rants about "openness" of markets and borders leading to "bottom-up" democracy.
The "spikes" you cite (uneven development) are CAUSED by capital treating real places and people as an "abstract network". I am not advocating roundness or flatness but anti-determinism; be it technological, economic or geographic ( a la Jared Diamond)
I agree that place matters, I just wanted to point out that it is contested and not fixed.
So, we are agreed that Tom Friedman is not the go-to man if you want some original and coherent thought...
Regarding this:
The "spikes" you cite (uneven development) are CAUSED by capital treating real places and people as an "abstract network".
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if capital treated the world as an "abstract network," what would determine why it accumulates one place rather than another? Abstract implies some physically determined system, like a circuit configuration, into which human concerns do not intrude. Of course, we know such economic networks don't exist.
As you say, place matters, and as you also say, it is always contested, by which I think you mean, people are always struggling to make this or that locale "theirs" and to "define" it vis a vis other locales. Who gets to define and who gets to delineate are what it's all about...
BTW, regarding determinism - I didn't read JD's second book, Collapse, and the shorter pieces related to it, by him and others, do stir any enthusiasm for it in me, but I liked his first book a lot. I read some criticisms of it saying that he had succumbed to the late 19th century bogey of geographic determinism, and I don't agree at all. (Maybe in his second book, I dunno...) The critiques I saw that suggested this seemed to have totally missed his point and misconstrued his logic. Some people seem to equate saying that certain things could only happen here or there at a given time with saying that geography determines everything.
This gets into the nature of determinism itself, and I consider myself to be a strict determinist, but not as that is normally understood. Suffice it to say, insofar as things are, they are determined. Spread that on your Hegelian bagel and chew it!
Post a Comment
<< Home