Rethinking the Humanistic Approach in Geography : Misunderstood Essences and Japanese Challenges

Japanese Journal of Human Geography 59-6（2007） Rethinking the Humanistic Approach in Geography : Misunderstood Essences and Japanese Challenges IMAZATO Satoshi Osaka University of Education I Introduction II Retrospect of Humanistic Approach in Japan （1） Impact of Tuan, Relph, and Ley （2） Geography as Subjective Space Research （3） Misunderstood in Japan and English-Speaking Countries III Rethinking the Methodology of Humanistic Geography （1） Tuan’s Exploration of Universal Spatial Order （2） Relph’s Reevaluation of Renaissance Humanism （3） Ley’s Social Scientific Multi-Method IV Misunderstood Essences （1） Anti-Science （2） Impossible Method （3） Researching Uniqueness （4） Redefining Humanistic Geography V Methodological Challenges by Japanese Geographers （1） Semiotics and Quantitative Textual Analysis （2） Rethinking Epistemology of Space and Landscape （3） Beyond Western Dualism VI Conclusion Key words : humanistic geography, subjective space, phenomenology, structuralism, epistemology of space, Western dualism I Introduction 1） In 1976, Tuan’s classic work gave birth to humanistic geography with the same name in English- speaking countries. In the same year, both Buttimer2） and Entrikin3） used the term ‘humanistic 4） geography（ geographer）’ in articles. Two years later, Ley and Samuels widely expanded the contents of this approach in a work that reevaluated traditional French and German geography, offered methodological reflections on humanities literature and fieldwork, and discussed philosophical considerations on epistemological grounds. However, since the late 1980s, the term ‘humanistic geography’ has not been directly used due to criticism from cultural materialism, feminism, and postmodernism ; it has evolved into critical ― 38 ― Rethinking the Humanistic Approach in Geography（ IMAZATO） 509 5） cultural-social geographies. Post-structural perspectives that debate identity politics, psycho- analysis, embodiment, performance, and constituted subjects must now be called ‘post-humanistic geography6）.’ In Japan, since the mid 1980s the humanistic approach has appeared in textbooks7） 8） and has seemingly penetrated the discipline. The social-political constructions of ‘place’ and the ‘meaning of place’ are also clearly understood by Japanese geographers who aspire to establish critical geographies in Japan9）. The development of Japanese humanistic geography has already been briefly reviewed in 10） English by Takeuchi. In Japanese, the penetration of humanistic perspectives into studies of natural environment and rural subsistence in cultural geography, influenced by German and American traditional cultural geography, has also been briefly reviewed by Matsumoto11） and Hisa- 12） take. Problems, however, remain in humanistic geography both in Japan and English-speaking countries : key concepts and perspectives have often been misunderstood ; a common mis con cep- tion is that all geographical studies of subjective space are automatically humanistic geography. This paper, therefore, traces both the spread of misunderstandings and the original challenges in Japanese humanistic geography of the last three decades by also rethinking humanistic perspectives in English-speaking countries’ geography. It does not refer to all contributions of Japanese humanistic geography including recent post-humanistic perspectives ; instead it concen- trates on discussions of subjective space, phenomenology, structuralism, and the episte mology of space and landscape to awaken an exact understanding and to extend the possibilities of this approach. The humanistic approach can never be ‘taken-for-granted.’ II Retrospect of Humanistic Approach in Japan （1） Impact of Tuan, Relph, and Ley In Japanese geography, as in English-speaking countries, the impact of the humanistic approaches of Tuan, Relph, and Ley has been especially remarkable. In 1979, Yamano and Takeuchi first introduced humanistic geography at Osaka City and Hitotsubashi Universities, respectively. Yamano13） accentuated Tuan’s and Relph’s works by extensively reviewing such 14） scholars as Guelke, Wright, and Lowenthal. Takeuchi focused on the works of Tuan and Butt- imer, explaining that humanistic geography reflects a quantitative-oriented approach and concen- trates on such existential aspects as meaning, value, and human intention. 15） Translations of humanistic geography have also flourished since the 1980s. Senda edited the 16） Japanese translations of humanistic geography masterpieces from Tuan, Buttimer, and Pocock with detailed comments on the original papers. Since the late 1980s, Tuan’s main works have been translated into Japanese by a drama historian17）, English literary scholars18）, and geographers19）. Inspired by Tuan’s humanities style and Jungian psychoanalytic concepts, Abe hypothesized the birth of an environmental perception in primitive and ancient Japan20） as well as the four ideal perspectives about natural environments in animistic, cosmological, monotheistic, and modern cultures21）. In the early 1990s, a translation of Relph’s prominent work on placelessness was also 22） published. Kamiya, who recently researched the social welfare problems of the elderly in a small town based on Relph’s concepts of ‘insideness’ and ‘rootedness23） ,’ contributed to a translation of Relph’s work on urban landscapes24）. However, since the early 1990s, the above works of Tuan and Relph have been reconsidered. Arayama25） doubted that Tuan’s perspective still remained in the mainstream of humanistic geography by briefly reviewing the spread of cultural-social geography through English-speaking ― 39 ― 510 人文地理第59巻第 6 号（2007） countries since the 1980s. Based on constructionist and relational perspectives, Oshiro26） criticized Tuan’s and Relph’s essentialist concepts of ‘place.’ Japanese geographers began to concentrate on social geographical humanist approaches including Ley’s works. They have also encountered exciting discussions on such approaches in the translated social geographical volume of Jackson 27） and Smith as well as in Ley’s philosophical essay within the behavioral approach of Cox and 28） 29） Golledge. The neo-classics of social geography including Ley, Buttimer, and Gregory were translated by scholars of the Osaka City and Kyushu schools30. ）（2） Geography as Subjective Space Research In Japan during the 1980s, empirical studies inspired by humanistic approaches were also fostered. Most research topics were resident subjective spaces in rural or urban neighborhood 31） societies. Hamatani and Yamano32）, rural geographers aware of the trends and histories in the social and cultural geography of English- and German-speaking countries, led the dissemination. Geographers born in the early 1960s followed the path of these introductory essays. For example, in their respective work, Nakashima33） and Sekido34 ）clarified subjective cognitions and the folk clas- sifications of village spaces by residents such as minor place names and village boundaries. Yamano’s humanistic perspective was also expanded by his students ; Shimazu35）, inspired by Ley’s social geographical perspective, adapted structuralism to abstract the spatial patterns of subjective spaces and ritual places in a hilly village, while Oshiro36） illustrated the topography of a small island based on Buttimer’s schema of “styles of living” : biosphere, socio-technosphere, and noosphere37）. Also in urban geography, many geographers, fascinated by Buttimer’s concept of “subjective social space38）” and Ley’s urban social geography, examined neighborhood districts in the Tokyo and Osaka metropolitan areas39）. On the other hand, Japanese rural geography has maintained a tradition that considers not only geographical studies but also folklore and cultural anthropological studies. The geographical 40） approach to symbolism in Japanese rural spaces was championed by Yagi, whose interest in subjective village boundaries, funeral rite roads, and symbolic shrine rituals was inspired more by anthropological structuralism and Japanese folklore traditions than humanistic geography. 41） Sekido’s book, which focuses on the spatial cognition of mountain village peoples, also mainly referenced Japanese folklore and traditional geography, barely acknowledging the humanistic approach. The study of Japanese folklore, began by Yanagita in the 1930s and which has adapted cultural anthropological methods, is the pursuit by the Japanese themselves of their souls reflected in their ordinary and sacred lives42）. It has fundamentally maintained its own humanistic perspective. As is generally known, the prehistory of humanistic geography can be traced to Wright and 43） Lowenthal or to the Harvard school of history and classics before World War II. Similarly, some studies within Japanese geography before the introduction of humanistic approaches from English-speaking countries can be regarded as substantially humanistic. Actually, Japanese histor- ical geographers have researched spatial recognitions and cosmology represented in pictorial 44） 45） maps relatively independently from the trends of English-speaking countries. By 1948, Suizu had already overviewed the pictorial maps of primitive societies and pointed out that their emotional sketch styles, called “participation” by Lévy-Bruhl, are based on unspecialized consideration of science, art, and religion. 46） Furthermore, based on pre- and post-World War II achievements as well as the IGU Kyoto meeting in 1980, the history of cartography flourished in the 1980s by focusing on such subjec-

Load more