Cultural Geography Is A Subfield of Human Geography Which Focuses

Cultural Geography is a subfield of Human Geography which focuses “upon the patterns and interactions
of human culture, both material and non-material, in relation to the natural environment and the
human organization of space” (Cosgrove 1994).
Three branches of cultural geography exist: ‘traditional’ cultural geography, sometimes referred to as
the ‘Berkeley School,’ ‘new’ cultural geography and, what is now starting to dominate the field (in the
UK at least), ‘more-than-representational’ geographies (Lorimer 2005).
‘Traditional’ cultural geography is a mainly American tradition of scholarship linked intimately to the
mid-twentieth century work of Carl Sauer (a Geography professor working out of Berkeley). Sauer
defined the landscape as the defining unit of geographic study. He saw that cultures and societies both
developed out of their landscape, but also shaped them too. According to Sauer this interaction
between the ‘natural’ landscape and human communities creates the ‘cultural landscape’. Cultural
geographers following this tradition focused on studying the range of human interventions in
transforming the ‘natural’ landscape, and were thus most interested in quantifying material culture
(e.g., buildings/architectures, agricultural technologies and other industries).
In the 1960s and 1970s, during the height of the ‘quantitative revolution’ interest in cultural geography
declined as human geographers turned their attention to developing the discipline as a ‘spatial science’.
During the 1980s, however, the critique of positivism in geography instigated a renewed interest in
cultural geography in North America and particularly in the United Kingdom, but with different
theoretical assumptions, methods and subjects than those of the Berkeley School. Rather than focusing
on material culture, mainly of non-modern and rural societies, the ‘new’ cultural geographers of the
1980s and 1990s examined culture in contemporary and urban societies, and focused primarily on
investigating non-material culture (e.g. identity, ideology, power, meaning, values etc).
Some of the main themes that were incorporated into ‘new’ cultural geography were: colonialism and
post-colonialism; postmodernism; popular culture and consumption; gender and sexuality; ‘race’, anti-
racism and ethnicity; ideology; language; and media. ‘New’ cultural geographers also drew on a diverse
set of theoretical traditions, including Marxist political-economic models, feminist theory, post-colonial
theory, post-structuralism and psychoanalysis.
A particular area of interest for ‘new’ cultural geographers has been that of identity politics and the
construction of identity. However some within the ‘new’ cultural geography camp have turned their
attention to critiquing some of its ideas, seeing its views on identity and space as static.
While some of the themes of ‘new’ cultural geography are still of interest, Nigel Thrift, through his
development of ‘non-representational theory’, challenges those using social theory and conducting
geographical research to move beyond an interest in identity politics and other static representations of
culture.
Instead of studying and representing social relationships (like in ‘new’ cultural geography), non-
representational theory focuses upon practices – how human and nonhuman formations are enacted or
performed – not simply on what is produced. This is a post-structuralist theory drawing in part from the
works of Michel Foucault, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and phenomenonologists such as Martin Heidegger,
but also weaving in the perspectives of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Bruno Latour and Michel
Serres. Non-representational theory’s focus upon hybrid formations parallels the conception of ‘hybrid
geographies’ developed by Sarah Whatmore, where she prompted cultural geographers to attend to the
‘more-than-human’ geographies in which we live.
Instead of theoretically representing the world then, those involved in the non-representational project
have deliberately sought to attend to ‘things taking place’ – hence the empirical focus on embodied
practices and dynamic processes (see for example Harrison 2000; Wylie 2002, 2005; McCormack 2002,
2005; Dewsbury 2000, 2003).
However, many commentators have expressed a concern that ‘abstract accounts of body-practices’ and
the return to phenomenological accounts of ‘being-in-the-world’ constitutes a retreat from exploring
the intersections between representations, discourses, material things, spaces and practices (e.g. Nash
2000).
Hayden Lorimer (Glasgow University) has therefore suggested the term ‘more-than-representational’ as
preferable for describing diverse work in geography that currently seeks to better understand “our self-
evidently more-than-human, more-than-textual, multisensual worlds” (Lorimer 2005: 83).
Cultural geography is probably is therefore best characterized as a living tradition of disagreements,

passions, commitments and enthusiasms and best understood as a ‘style of thought’ interested in
expanding and illuminating diverse geographies.

Cultural Geography Is A Subfield of Human Geography Which Focuses

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultural Geography Is A Subfield of Human Geography Which Focuses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultural Geography Is A Subfield of Human Geography Which Focuses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cultural Geography is a subfield of Human Geography which focuses “upon the patterns and interactions

Cultural geography is probably is therefore best characterized as a living tradition of disagreements,

You might also like