C08.07 Cultural Approach in Geography

Session: Cultures and sustainability

Chair(s): Benno Werlen

Abstract:
From the origins of ecological research geography has played a key role in developing theoretical frameworks and in empirical investigation. The theoretical foundations of ecological research and sustainability policies were developed at the end of the nineteenth century largely on the basis of biological and geographical investigations into living spaces and into the evolution and differentiation of varied life forms. The methodological approach conceived then remains valid today. The ‘natural’ or ‘spatial’ (including their ecological components) are set as starting points of ecological investigations, preceding all human actions. If indeed current ecological problems are caused by human action, their causes lie largely outside natural science realms of competence. The nature and the human causes of non-sustainable practices are increasingly well understood, but winning the knowledge of how to change individual and social practices toward sustainability remains a major challenge to healthy nature/society relationships as well as to designing environmental policies informed by sound science. In addition we need culturally differentiated approches. For this a better understanding of the interrelation of culture and sustainability is needed. However, research too often lacks detailed insight into the relevance of cultural differences concerning ecological issues and sustainability research and policies. Contributions should provide insights into the question as to what extend practices of sustainability should be linked to culturally embedded knowledge and skills.

Timeslots: 2

Session: Cultural Approaches in Social and Geographical Theory

Chair(s): Benno Werlen

Abstract:
It is a commonplace that both social theory and geography have performed a turn towards cultural issues during the last decade. However, a thorough reflexion on the cultural dimension in geographical practices needs still further elaboration. Over the last decades the theoretical debates in human geography were reshaping the geographical world views form space centred towards rather praxis centred perspectives. Traditional concepts of radical cultural areas became – as Samuel P. Huntingtons concept of the ‘clash of civilisations’ illustrated it – highly problematic under conditions of globalization and intensified migration. The session is envisioned as an opportunity to bring together geographers with different praxis-centered theoretical perspectives and different topical research fields across diverse sub-disciplines. In particular, papers are welcomed from those working on efforts to reconceptualise the cultural dimensions of geographical practices in respect of power, identity and globalization.

Timeslots: 2

Session: Globalization and the Change of Place Identity in East Asia

Chair(s): Je-Hun Ryu & Shangyi Zhou

Abstract:
It has been widely held that the forces of globalization have eroded local cultures and produced homogenized global spaces, resulting in a loss of sense of place. Political struggles over place, therefore, often provide opportunities for resistance to the mobile forces of globalization. Political struggles for place identity also appeal to the parochial and exclusive forces of bigotry and nationalism. Into such a prevailing notion, the conception of a ‘progressive or global sense of place’ makes a critical intervention, challenging the idea of place that is connected to a rooted and authentic identity. It proposes a new conceptualization of place as open and hybrid, a product of interconnecting flows, that is, of routes rather than roots. Even in the era of globalization, with a restless and multi-traditional people, place continues to define culture and identity. It is possible for a sense of place to be progressive; not self-enclosing and defensive, but outward-looking. Since the joining in the membership of WTO, Japan, Korea and China in temporal sequence have actively participated in the process of globalization. The significance of place has increased under the conditions of flexible accumulation, postmodernity and time-space compression. In East Asia, place identity at many scales has been very much on the agenda either through its apparent homogenization or through various attempts to create place from nation to the heritage park. Even the East Asian identity has been on the agenda for the discussions on the future of East Asian (economic or cultural) community. Under these circumstances, it is timely to organize a special session which would focus on the change of place identity in the globalization era while allowing for the possibility of finding out the common (changing) routes across East Asia. In this context, the possible themes of papers to be presented for the session could be outlined like the following: - The way how people create or use places in order to assert identity in face of global forces and movement - The way how memory (history) and place intersect in the production of heritage or tourist sites - The way how particular visions of place are created in order to get people to live there - The way how place is used in the construction of ideas about who and what belongs where and when - The way how place identity is (re)made in order to attract consumers, tourists and investors.

Timeslots: 1

Session: Multilocality: symbolic and material constructions of space in societies of mobile individuals

Chair(s): Mathis Stock & Michaela Schier

Abstract:
The "society of mobile individuals" constitutes nowadays the horizon of geography's empirical inquiry. The problem of mobility and circulation, the differentiation of capacities of being mobile, the social norms about mobility, the problem of presence and absence, the hyperprecise spatio-temporal coordination of activities, the transforming processes of identities and alterities and the temporary practice of places are the prominent problems of such societies. Moreover, geographical mobility and multilocality of practices, people, objects raise issues in all the domains of society: new forms of leisure, new forms of organising family, new forms of working and new forms of trade-off between work places, leisure places, residences etc. arise. Three main questions can be raised: what are the societal conditions of multilocality? What are the consequences of presence/absence upon geographical places, individiuals, families, corporations, public service, etc.? What are the practices of multi-locality? This problem is expressed here under the heading of “multilocality” because of the restrictive view of mobility studies on circulation, “space of flows”, “disembedding” where the questions of “re-embedding” and multilocal arrangements are neglected. Multilocality focuses as well on circulation as on immobility, on movement as on practising places. The following questions could be investigated more thoroughly:
1. The question of the interrelations between the individual mobilities. How the different dis-placements are put together by the individuals, how do they develop a specific "mode of dwelling"? We would like to let behind the question of mobilities taken one by one, and raise the question of the linkages between the individual mobilities, for example between migration and tourism, work and leisure, migration and commuting. The aim is to reconstruct the individual systems of mobility and to understand how they are maintained.
2. There is a lack of theoretical grounding, despite of the recognition that some of the main concepts (such as "migration", "tourism", "secondary homes", etc.) do no longer fit the empirical findings, because of the invention of new kinds of practices. Is the “secondary home” really “secondary”? Which concepts allow for an encompassing framing of those phenomenon? The aim is to foster a theoretical and conceptual discussion in order to develop a more adequate toolbox for our empirical research.
3. Geographical mobility is one of the elements that contribute to produce individuals with new characteristics of subjectivity, manners, behaviours, values, ethos, habitus, identities, emotions. It is our content that multilocality produces individuals of different quality than without multilocality. How those characteristics can be geographically described? To which extent practising multiple places is a challenge for personal and collective identities and the “production” of the contemporary individual.
4. The questions of presence and absence is not only meaningful on the individual level but also on the societal level. How and where the civil society can be organised when people are present in other places than their residence place? How places respond to the massive influx of “secondary homes” in metropolises and tourist places? How the qualities of such places are transformed? How local services – waste and water management, retail trade, schools, crèches, restaurants and cafés – adapt to the temporary use of their facilities?
5. How this circulation is being processed? Multilocality is not flux, but it is about “doing space” and coping with spatial dimensions. Which bodily techniques, spatial capital, skills, instruments, financial means, familiy support etc., allows for this performance? Which material elements – food, souvenirs, papers, furniture, etc. – are problematic in the multilocal arrangements of activities? How the digital instruments – mobile phone, laptop, Internet, e-mail etc. – are used.

Timeslots: 2

Session: The Uses of Art in Public Space

Chair(s): Julia Lossau & Quentin Stevens

Abstract:
With the emergence of public art as a distinct form of art practice in the late 1960s, and the subsequent explosion in its varieties of medium, form and location, geographers began examining the complex spatialities of public art’s conception, production and reception. This interest has intensified through the cultural turn in the social sciences, the increased interest in utilizing qualitative data and methods, and in particular through the strong links established both theoretically and empirically between art and urban gentrification. Another strong thematic link between public art and geographical research agendas is the ways that these artworks might connect to memory and sense of place. The vast majority of existing research into public art has focused on the aesthetic, cultural and political intentions and processes which shape its production. The art object is often viewed in terms of an instrumental or symbolic role within a particular ideologically-driven activity, such as affirming class or ethnic distinctions, or assisting city marketing and gentrification. What remains relatively understudied is how various kinds of public art are actually received by the public, and the material landscape within which that reception occurs. Much analysis dwells on theoretical discussion of the potential representational capacities of artworks as texts, with too little empirical analysis of their actual ‘use’, which may not be discursive, and which may not be as the artist or sponsor intended. The aim of this session is to examine various geographical aspects of public artworks from the perspective of their everyday use. We take public art in a broad sense to include commissioned and unofficial artworks, memorials, street art, advertising, and street furniture. We are interested in the rich diversity of people’s engagements with public artworks across various temporal and spatial scales. We particularly encourage the submission of papers which explore the following themes:

different modes of use of public artworks: passive, active and interventionist; through the various senses
different understandings of use within the overall development process for public art: its conception, funding, procurement, development, construction, unveiling, and aftercare. Does the public only ‘use’ public artworks as finished products?
conflicts between everyday practices around public art and the expectations of designers, sponsors and site managers
the encouragement or management of specific user behaviors around public artworks
how everyday practices around public artworks relate to their meaning, history and their modes of representation
how these practices vary according to specific social factors such as gender, age, and cultural background
how notions of ‘use’ and ‘mis-use’ can be conceptualised convincingly in the case of art, which is typically defined in opposition to practical utility

Timespots: 2

Session: Spatialities of Art: between policy and politics

Chair(s): Anne Volvey & Myriam Houssay-Holzschuch

Abstract:
This session is about the spatialities of art. It aims at putting forward, discussing, and possibly articulating geographical approaches of the today’s political dimension of art through space. It proposes a discussion within a binary framework. The first approach is to concentrate on the various portions of space that are dedicated to “creative industries” – (1) either “cultural districts” designed by planners and infused with cultural events or objects of art by invited artists; (2) or “artists-run spaces” initiated by the artists themselves and dedicated to working, exhibiting or performing. This first approach’s theoretical basis is spatial economy, which provides not only concepts, but also an unequivocal materialistic definition of space – assimilated to built space or to the spaces of zoning. It simultaneously understands art as a “function”. (1) According to this approach and in the context of post-industrial restructuring policies, art is an activity encoded and managed by spatial engineering (land planning, urbanism); it is supposed to contribute to the economical, environmental and social optimization of the area in question, and thus to help market the territory in many different ways, and develop a sustainable dwelling. (2) Alternatively, art is seen as an activity run by the artists-as-entrepreneurs who, struggling for space in the midst of the cities’ restructuring and dealing with the real estate market, challenge the cities’ political agenda and zoning, thus creating an alternative cultural scene and implementing an artist-led urban regeneration. These two conceptions understand the relationship between art and space on the model of the gallery (or of the art event) and make the political dimension of art works on it: a dedicated place where to exhibit and to sale an object/event of art, which can be both engaged and consumed in various ways and dimensions. A second approach meets N. Bourriaud’s relational perspective (Esthétique relationnelle, 2001) upon contemporaneous art, and makes it work on a spatial principle. It aims at understanding the spatiality of the arts from the basis of both the practices of artists and the ways these practices deal with a multidimensional space. From this prospect, space is not considered as pre-existing and exterior to what happens or takes place in it: space is interesting insofar as it is linked to practices, it is a dimension of the practice. This approach is supported by the analysis of the “spatial turn” in contemporary arts, the US land artists achieved in the 1960s. These artists conducted an articulated set of spatial strategies reflecting on “outdoors” (outside the art world’s institutions), “in situ” (the place as an alternative to the object) and change in the scale of the object of art, and criticizing the “art world” for the way it encoded the arts and merchandised their products. By outdooring their practice, the land artists found no place designed for art and had to claim the land they planned to substitute the object with, and thus to work it. As a consequence, they no longer worked in the space but rather worked with the spatial dimensions of land/place/space. Hence, art should be no longer taken as an “activity in space” or a “function of the space” but rather considered as a “doing with space”. The political dimension of the art lies in the “arts of doing with space” – since they engage the social groups the artist calls upon, and the multidimensions of space he/her claims. The spatiality of the object of art finds itself redefined: “in situ” is a terminological misfit that fails to render what is in fact an object-place of art – the spatial regime of visibility of the politics of the art. Thus, US Land Art functions as a matrix for contemporary art practices, insofar as they are less likely to submit to purposes of urban engineering, but more likely to provide creative tools for rebuilding social interconnections by means of negotiations about space.

Timespots: 1

Session: Cultural approaches to Sacred Spaces in the global era

Chair(s): Rubén C. Lois-Gonzáles, Valeriá Paül-Carril & Miguel Pazos-Otón

Abstract:
Sacred Spaces can be defined as places where religious experience is a key issue. They also have constituted (and constitute nowadays) very important cultural references, marking the identity of societies and territories along the time. Religion and Culture have been very closely related. In the Middle Christian Ages, Culture was almost solely developed by religious orders and monks in particular. The Enlightenment provoked in the Christian-based countries a progressive differentiation between Religion and Culture, being increasingly Culture more and more independent. In contemporary societies, Religion is only a small part of Culture. This change and the evolution in the role of Religion affected also to the role and importance of Sacred Spaces. Megalithic monuments, temples, sanctuaries, monasteries, churches, mosques and cathedrals have been punctual Sacred Spaces from the beginning of Mankind and the Ancient Age. In order to link some of these elements with cities or societies different ways of pilgrimage have been established as linear Sacred Spaces. Nowadays, in a globalised World, punctual sacred spaces continue to be very important for cultural and social identity, and also for culture-based activities as Cultural Tourism. But a very relevant point herein is the emergence of different ways of pilgrimage around the world. They have the power to create very strong images and to spread cultural references of territories throughout the entire World. In Cultural Tourism, the ways of pilgrimage are playing nowadays a major role. Probably, the best example of pilgrimage is the different Ways of Saint James, a route which (quoting Goethe words) was a key factor in order to explain the cultural construction of Europe. We take the Ways of Saint James as a start point in order to formulate several questions relevant to this session. The Ways of Saint-James are historical pilgrimage trails coming from different countries and cities from the whole European continent and pointing towards the city of Santiago de Compostela (Galicia, Spain). These ways were based on the assumption that the relics of the Apostle James the Greater lay in this city, supposedly discovered at the beginning of the 9th century. The origins of the Ways can be found in the Middle Ages but, since the Mediaeval times, have mainly been lost in both its physical (the exact route of the Ways) and cultural (mainly religious and spiritual, but also political) dimensions. Through a complicated process developed in the last three decades, the Ways are now again in force and gaining momentum, recovering some of the previous meanings, while adding new ones, and (re)implementing physically some of the trails. The milestones in this ‘reconstruction’ process have been the designation of the French Way of Saint-James as European Cultural Route (being the first one designated with this figure in 1987) and World Heritage in 1993. Nowadays the Ways of Saint-James can be considered at a global scale one of the most outstanding and appealing routes of the world, having attracted enormous attention from countries such as Brazil, Japan or Australia. It is assumed for this Session that the Ways of Saint-James constitute a vibrant “Sacred Space laboratory” of how the space is culturally reshaped within the globalisation dynamics. Globalisation means the extension of some selected cultural patterns through the world and it is surprising how the Ways of Saint-James have achieved world significance, being very popular in countries around the world with very different cultural and religious backgrounds. In this respect, a deep discussion on the relations between space, culture, religion and globalisation is expected taking the Ways of Saint-James as focal point. In this respect, several questions are proposed in order to structure this session. These questions can be (re)formulated to any Sacred Space in the World:
a) How the Ways of Saint-James have been reconfigured in the last decades and have adopted new meanings? Is the religious role still prevalent? Are them nowadays more a matter of tourism promotion and diffusion?
b) How the Ways of Saint-James have become popular in different countries, not only in Europe but abroad? Why are they receiving so much attraction? Is because of a carefully planned government promotion or is it being spontaneously promoted by itself? To which extent novels, travel guides and magazines, films… in different nations are spreading this predilection? Is that an effect of a global cultural homogenisation? Who is governing or interested in this process?
c) In terms of cultural identity and symbolism, the Ways of Saint-James have been presented as the metaphor of a united Europe. Is that really assumed within the continent and how is that shaped? How is this perceived outside the European context, does it make sense?
d) Which are the spatial and landscape effects of these ‘reborn’ Ways? Are the areas affected by the Ways experiencing economic, social, cultural, linguistic… transformations? Are the landscapes being modified because of the ‘reconstruction’ of the Ways?
e) How the Ways of Saint-James are networking and interacting with other ways around the world such as the Kumano-Kodo pilgrimage route in Japan? How and why different ways are being created in countries like Brazil in order to imitate and interact with the original Ways of Saint-James, such as the Way of the Sun (São Paulo State) or the Way of the Peace and the Way to Santiago de Iguape (Bahia State)? Are these latter cultural ‘clones’?

Timeslots: 1