Place and Region: Regional Worlds and Words Prog Hum Geogr 2002 26: 802 DOI: 10.1191/0309132502Ph404pr

Home , Regional geography

Progress in Human Geography http://phg.sagepub.com/

Place and region: regional worlds and words Prog Hum Geogr 2002 26: 802 DOI: 10.1191/0309132502ph404pr

The online version of this article can be found at: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/26/6/802

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Progress in Human Geography can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/26/6/802.refs.html

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 20, 2011 Progress in Human Geography 26,6 (2002) pp. 802–811

Place and region: regional worlds and words Anssi Paasi Department of Geography, Box 3000, 90014, University of Oulu, Finland

I Introduction

Following the long descent of regional geography and some pleas that regions should be studied in theoretically informed ways (Gregory, 1978), ‘new regional geography’ became an attractive category in the late 1980s. This label, proposed by Thrift (1983; cf. Johnston, 1985), became popular by virtue of the review by Gilbert (1988), who brought together various perspectives on the concept of region such as the Marxist and humanist approaches and theories of practice, but some others saw this simply as a project ‘coming from the left’ (Sayer, 1989). ‘New regional geography’ was and still is a somewhat ambivalent brand: while some authors evaluated by Gilbert noted the need to reconceptualize region/place, very few suggested any new regional geography as such. It has not become a coherent approach so far, but rather an umbrella term for research reflecting how regions/places can be constituted by and constitutive of social life, relations and identity (but see Thrift, 1994; 1998). Region and place continue to be significant categories in human geography, but increasingly in other fields, too (Auge, 1995; Gupta and Ferguson, 1997; Escobar, 2001 Keating, 2001), and their meanings are in flux. In spite of their importance, both are often taken as given or as subjugated to questions of economy, culture or identity, i.e., phenomena or processes occurring in given regions/places. Geographers have never- theless theorized during the last two decades over such problems as how regions/places are produced and reproduced as part of the broader social production of space (Thrift, 1983; Pred, 1984; Paasi, 1991; Taylor, 1991; Entrikin, 1991; Murphy, 1991; Massey, 1995; Sack, 1997; Allen et al., 1998; MacLeod, 1998). I will look in this report at current views on region and place and at the relations between these categories, and finally try to contextualize the existing views and arguments.

II Region and research practice

When Smith (1996: 190) suggests that ‘good concepts are flexible, ambiguous, suitable to any occasion, and fit for any eventuality’, he shows how ambivalent region and place have remained in geography. In spite of the diffusion of influences across national boundaries, scholars operating in different language-bound, historically contingent regional worlds or ‘spaces of knowledge’ (Livingstone, 1995; Gregory, 1998) use and develop concepts and approaches that only partly overlap. Existing conceptualizations thus reflect social – including academic – practices, contexts and constellations of power. One important structural factor is location among the humanities or the natural or social sciences. This may influence crucially how basic categories are shaped and what interpretations are found acceptable in society and in the academic world (Becher, 1989). The review by Gilbert (1988) made this clear with regard to the French and English-speaking worlds, but geographers in Germany (Werlen, 1997; Wollersheim et al., 1998; Bahrenberg and Kuhm, 1999), The Netherlands (Hoekveld and Hoekveld- Meijer, 1995; Terlouw, 2001) and Scandinavia (Paasi, 1991; Baerenholt, 1998; Häkli, 1998), for example, have also carried out theoretically informed research into region/place, often reflecting economic, cultural and political problems in their national contexts. ‘Regional words’ thus always reflect the regional worlds in which they have been developed (cf. Radcliffe and Westwood, 1996: 168). (Key) Words and concepts are not the same thing. While the words ‘region’ or ‘place’ have proved to be lasting names for geographical concepts, the concepts themselves have been less permanent representations of categories of things or ideas. The trans- forming of social and disciplinary practices is a perpetual challenge to existing conceptualizations. The development of concepts should be based on abstractions that define these concepts in relation to the practices, discourses and power relations through which certain regions or places and the ideas of them have become what they are. Although state governance is still the major context for region (and identity) building, a re-scaling is currently taking place. It is to an increasing extent the international markets and regional political responses to global capitalism (such as the continental regime in Europe) that generate regionalism and accentuate the importance of regions (Keating, 1998; 2001). This implies a new politico-economic direction in the understanding of region and place in a world where the established state-based scalar logic is eroding and a more flexible understanding of current spatialities is needed (Amin, 2002). Regional worlds are also affected by new conceptualizations and discourses, since these are tools for both producing and interpreting social transformations (Foucault, 1970). Studies of spaces of regionalism show that regions continue to be significant elements in political mobilization, and that identity/ideology building often occurs in relation to ‘other’ regional spaces (Keating, 2001; Giordano, 2000; Agnew, 2001; Jones, 2001, Jones and MacLeod, 2001). Spatial categories are hence an important part of ongoing social reproduction, political economy, identity and citizenship building on all spatial scales.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 20, 2011 804 Place and region

III Regional geographies in the making

In her review of methodological approaches to regions, Gilbert (1988) expanded the static typologies of regions, such as the distinctions between formal, functional, perceptual and administrative regions. As a further step, an analytical distinction can be made between three ideas of region that geographers perpetually lean back on: the pre-scientific, discipline-centred and critical ideas (Paasi, 1996a). The pre-scientific view implies that ‘region’ is a practical choice, a given spatial unit (statistical area, munici- pality or locality), which is needed for collecting/representing data but which has no particular conceptual role. This view is typical of applied and comparative research (Tomaney and Ward, 2001). The current ‘Europe of regions’ provides a particularly tempting grid of regions (and data) that are often taken for granted. While comparative studies are often based on given (statistical) areas, these units should not be regarded as neutral backgrounds, since regions are implicated in the social processes under scrutiny. The discipline-centred view of regions regards them as objects (e.g., traditional Landschaft geography) or results of the research process, often formal or functional classifications of empirical elements. These views are often used to legitimate a specific ‘geographical perspective’ – hence the debates as to whether regions are ‘real’ units or imagined, mental categories (Minshull, 1967; Agnew, 2001). These debates are not only a historical curiosity but are fitting illustrations of the struggle over legitimate conceptualizations. The resulting ‘regions’ are examples of academic socialization and power/knowledge relations, but they also show the power of geography, in that once they have been invented they can be powerful in shaping the spatial imagination and spatial action, e.g., in governance. School and university geography textbooks, for their part, still often represent naturalized narratives of a homology between bounded spaces and national/cultural groups. One perpetual challenge is to deconstruct the ‘geographical’ assumptions and inclusions/exclusions that these narratives imply on all spatial scales (Gupta and Ferguson, 1997; Bell, 2001). Critical approaches emerge from social practice, relations and discourse, and strive to conceptualize spatialities as part of a wider network of cultural, political and economic processes and of divisions of labour. Most work labelled as ‘new regional geography’ belongs here, including that which involves mapping individual/social identities (Thrift, 1998) or regarding regions as manifestations of capital accumulation (Massey, 1978) or settings for interaction (Thrift, 1983). While these approaches have normally been pursued separately, a critical regional geography should ideally combine the politico-economic approaches with questions of subjectification and identity formation (Paasi, 1996b). Further, the view of regions as processes stresses both the importance of a historical perspective for understanding them as part of a broader process of regional transformation and the conceptualization of the scales of ‘history’ in each case (Paasi, 1991; Taylor, 1991). Critical approaches suggest that regions are ‘social constructs’ (Entrikin, 1996; Allen et al., 1998; Agnew, 2001). While critical research may also take regions as given (Murphy, 1991), geographers use the social construction of regions in most cases to refer to historically contingent practices and discourses in which actors produce and give meaning to more or less bounded material and symbolic worlds – not only to the ‘cooperation’ of individual minds to create intersubjective meanings. Most social

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 20, 2011 Anssi Paasi 805 collectives, such as ‘nations’, are identified as imagined communities where spatial boundaries may be important constituents (Anderson, 1991), but, besides ‘imagination’, these collectives exist firmly in social practice. Similarly, ‘regions’ are based at times on collective social classifications/identifications, but more often on multiple practices in which the hegemonic narratives of a specific regional entity and identity are produced, become institutionalized and are then reproduced (and challenged) by social actors within a broader spatial division of labour. Regions, their boundaries, symbols and institutions are hence not results of autonomous and evolutionary processes but expressions of a perpetual struggle over the meanings associated with space, represen- tation, democracy and welfare. The institutionalization of regions may take place on all spatial scales, not only between the local level and the state (Paasi, 1991). Actors and organizations involved in the territorialization of space may act both inside and outside regions. All this means that geographers have been forced to rethink the question of the ‘objectivity’ of regions and to understand them as processes that are performed, limited, symbolized and institutionalized through numerous practices and discourses that are not inevitably bound to a specific scale. Regions are thus complicated institutional structures, ‘institutional facts’, because they are dependent on human agreement and institutions (Searle, 1995), such as the media, the education system, political organization, governance and economics – most of them operating across scales. ‘Region building’ always includes normative components because institutional structures are structures of rules, power and trust, in which boundaries, symbols and institutions merge through material practice. Once created, they are also social facts, since they can generate (and are generated by) action as long as people believe in them, and as long as they have a role in publicity spaces or in governance. This action may be simultane- ously reproductive, resistant or transformative. Regions are complicated ideological and material media of power for individuals and social groups that researchers can conceptualize from different angles. The discourses on regions and regionalization, in which power-holding actors invest their interests and presuppositions in things and words, may actually gradually create the ‘reality’ that they are describing or suggesting. Afitting example is the EU, where new governmen- tal practices have increased radically the number of region/identity ‘builders’ – actors who operate with ‘regions’, and who write, talk and draw public representations to market them (Paasi, 2002). Practical classifications – statements of what regionalizations and regions are – are orientated towards the production of social effects and impregnated with power (Bourdieu, 1991). Thus these new spaces of action and publicity may finally affect the distribution of resources and the life of the people in the regions.

IV Region and place in a globalizing world

Most regional categories are laden with historical connotations that do not normally change rapidly although they may be constantly challenged. The major current challenges are the transformations occurring in economics, governance and politics, in fact harking back to the earliest English uses of the word region: ‘to rule’. These economic and administrative connotations are evident, e.g., in the debates on

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 20, 2011 806 Place and region globalization, changing forms of communication or the rise of the ‘Europe of regions’. Interdisciplinary research in this context has been carried out into new regionalism, new forms of regulation, de-/reterritorialization, re-scaling of (state) governance and sovereignty, and into regional identity (Keating, 2001; Le Galès and Lequesne, 1998; Calleya, 2000; Pierre, 2000; Krasner, 2001; MacLeod, 1998; MacLeod and Jones, 2002; Paasi, 2001; Tomaney and Ward, 2001; Jones, 2001). Particularly useful reviews of the spatiality of current political economic tendencies are MacLeod (2001) and Amin (2002). Thrift (1998) aptly recalls that, however different the accounts of globalization may be, the notion of region is central to each of them. In spite of this new interest in regions (and places), many researchers have tended to conceptualize phenomena and processes occurring in and between regions rather than theorizing over regions as parts of these processes. Another problem is that the region has been understood as a given scale between the state and the local (Scott, 1998), a view that is currently changing as attention is coming to be paid to the multiple processes and scales of social reproduction (Swyngedouw, 1997; Brenner, 1998; 2001; Dicken and Malmberg, 2001; Marston, 2000; Marston and Smith, 2001; Amin, 2002). It is partly due to the association of ‘region’ with governance/territoriality and the naturalized view of ‘regional’ as a level between local and national that the notion of ‘place’ is increasingly being preferred today. It is perhaps symptomatic that the word ‘region’ is not included in the indices of such important books as Douglas et al. (1996), Harvey (1996), Massey et al. (1999), Adams et al. (2001), Sack (1997), Scott (1998) or Storper (1997). Even though geographers often understand place and region as synonymous (Pred, 1984; Johnston, 1991; Allen et al., 1998) or use a scale based on such categories (local/supra-local) (Entrikin, 1989; 1991) or the relation of these categories to spatial experience (May, 1970; Tuan, 1975) as arguments to distinguish them from each other, the current interest in place implies the old etymological meaning of place as a ‘broad way’ or ‘open space’, not a return to the ‘particular’, ‘unique’ or generic qualities of place. Place is one of the most multilayered and multipurpose key words in current geographical language (Harvey, 1996: 208). Hence ‘place’ is conceptualized flexibly, ad hoc, without any presuppositions of scale, showing a relativist tendency to leave the general meanings of categories open. Place is thus understood contextually (and at times metaphorically) in relation to ethnicity, class, gender, sexuality, body, self, etc., often in such a manner that it becomes one constitutive element in the politics of identity (Massey et al., 1999). While location and the ‘local’ scale have been part of the traditional geographical understanding of place, humanistic geographers did not fix ‘place’ to any scale but defined it in relation to (localized) human (intersubjective) experience (Tuan, 1975). Current views are becoming increasingly more open and reflect the cultural, moral and economic dimensions prevailing in local-global relations (Relph, 1996; Sack, 1997; Adams et al., 2001; Escobar, 2001). Entrikin (1999) argues that the moral significance of place becomes evident when places are conceived of not as locations in space but as being related to individual subjects, as processes mediating between the particular and the universal. Critical human geographers similarly do not fix place to any scale but argue for more open horizons: if space is thought of as a set of social relations that are stretched out, then places are locations of particular sets of intersecting social relations (Massey, 1995;

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 20, 2011 Anssi Paasi 807

Massey et al., 1999) and governance/planning (Madanipour et al., 2001). Allen et al. (1998) also understand ‘region’ in this way, using the prosperous southeast of England as an example. Thrift (1998) takes the same example in his account of the new regional geography, but asks whether such multinodal sets of successful agglomerations are ‘planar’ regions at all (cf. Tomaney and Ward; 2001, and Jones and MacLeod; 2001, on the northeast region, where economic decline has created cohesion). The ‘topographi- cal’ view of Amin (2002) on globalization and its rejection of oppositions such as place/space, proximity/distance and scaling/re-scaling might be helpful in clarifying current conceptualizations. Traditional ideas of region/place as ‘bounded spaces’ have thus been challenged – and not only in ‘new regional geography’. Criticism of the account of the world as a mosaic of separate cultures (Appadurai, 1996; Gupta and Ferguson, 1997; Olwig and Hastrup, 1997) has been endorsed by cultural (Jackson and Penrose, 1993; Sibley, 1995) and political geographers (Agnew, 1994; Radcliffe and Westwood, 1996) and by IR scholars (Shapiro, 1999). These interdisciplinary views force us to reflect on boundaries in new ways. While both the ultra-liberal rhetoric of the borderless world (Ohmae, 1995) and the view on the links between identity and boundaries (Conversi, 1995; Pratt, 1999) have gained support on a general level, the question of whether a place/region/territory should be understood as a bounded unit is of course more complicated. As in the case of state territoriality (Taylor, 1994), the various organizations, institutions and actors involved in the institutionalization of a region may have different strategies with regard to the meaning and functions of the region and its ‘identity’ (cf. Allen et al., 1998: 34). ‘Regions’ may be open to economic or cultural processes and concomitantly territorially governed. Some people may identify themselves passionately with the region, others may have a less affective attitude, while some may raise strong resistance to hegemonic spatialized identity narratives and practices. Thus a region/place may be bounded in some sense but not in others. The idea of a boundary as a dividing line is just one possible conceptualization that has guided (political) geographical thinking since the institutionalization of the field. Boundaries cannot be written off, but new interpretations of their meanings in social life can be developed. Boundaries occur not only at the ‘edges’ of regions, but are to be found everywhere within them, in innumerable practices and discourses that have to be conceptualized and analysed to make visible the strategies of power that are sedimented in collective identity narratives. Boundaries are a terrain of mixing and blurring, where material, symbolic and power relations become fused (Paasi, 2003). New horizons have thus challenged the uniqueness of place, emphasizing openness and a multiscalar character but often ignoring human experience (but see Agnew, 1987; Taylor, 1999). An analytic distinction between place and region renders possible one interpretation of the multidimensionality of spatiality which is usually lost in new regional geographies that take the two terms as synonymous. If regions are conceptualized as multiscalar institutional structures, places can be conceptualized as cumulative archives of personal spatial experience emerging from unique webs of situated life episodes. ‘Place’ is thus not bound to any specific location but conceptualized from the perspective of personal and family/household histories and life stories. There is no necessary link between people and a specific location. People increasingly change their positions and cross borders as (im)migrants, guest workers, refugees, asylum seekers, tourists and users of media. Different materialized and metaphorical

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 20, 2011 808 Place and region

‘locations’ become embodied and accumulate in their moving bodies and experience (cf. Thrift, 1999). Individual life histories and meanings are always social, since they are positioned in practices and discourses based on family, class, gender, ethnicity, generations and, more broadly, social history. None of these elements is bound only to a specific location or region. Region and place become fused in inevitably contested institutional practices, discourse and memory. This conceptualization of place renders it possible to locate experience and meaning in increasingly dynamic ‘regional worlds’. One example of this is provided by Fullilove (1999; also, 1996), who reflects the importance of place by drawing on both her ‘life geography’ as a member of a multiethnic family and various documents. These thoughts resemble the ideas of Thrift (1998) on the new ‘New regional geography’, a specific theoretical, methodological and political stance that stresses interconnectedness, hybridity and possibility. This non-representational approach opens up three important research questions (p. 44): how the structures of power dominating everyday lives are built up from a range of materials, how subjectivity is built up performatively and productively as a part of these structures, and how space intervenes and is constituted. Accordingly, Thrift wants to shift attention from discursive and contemplative models of human action to practices and tactile issues such as affects, passions and dreaming.

V Conclusions

Regional worlds are increasingly complex and their origins and meanings are hidden in numerous social practices and discourses that fuse various spatial scales. Similarly, current views of ‘region’ and ‘place’ are contested and are characterized by discontinu- ities and asymmetries. These developments have challenged the existing disciplinary boundaries and those between regional, cultural, economic and political geography. This is indeed a fascinating moment for geographers to reflect contextually on how social relations, institutional structures, ideologies, symbols and subjectivity/identity come together in discourses and practices through which both regions/places and narratives on them come into being, exist and disappear. It remains to be seen whether this complex field will provide geographers with conceptual and methodological tools for developing a more coherent agenda for a ‘new regional geography’. Or will it still be the case, as noted a decade ago by Johnston (1991: 67), that ‘we do not need regional geography but we do need regions in geography’. In both cases, region and place will still be major conceptual elements in the field.

References

Adams, P., Hoelscher, S. and Till, K.E., editors Review of International Political Economy 1, 2001: Textures of place: exploring humanist 53–80. geographies. Minneapolis: University of –––– 2001: Regions in revolt. Progress in Human Minnesota Press. Geography 25, 103–10. Agnew, J.A. 1987: Place and politics. Boston: Allen Allen, J., Massey, D. and Cochrane, A. 1998: and Unwin. Rethinking the region. London: Routledge. –––– 1994: The territorial trap: the geographical Amin, A. 2002: Spatialities of globalization. assumptions of international relations theory. Environment and Planning A 34, 385–99.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 20, 2011 Anssi Paasi 809

Anderson, B. 1991: Imagined communities. 269–82. London: Verso. Escobar, A. 2001: Culture sits in places: Appadurai, A. 1996: Modernity at large. reflections on globalism and subaltern Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. strategies of localization. Political Geography 20, Auge, M. 1995: Non-places: introduction to an 139–74. anthropology of supermodernity. London: Verso. Foucault, M. 1970: The order of things. New York: Baerenholdt, J.O. 1998: Regioner er politiske rum Random House. – også for geografer! Nordisk Samhällgeografisk Fullilove, M.T. 1996: Psychiatric implications of Tidskrift 26, 3–21. displacement: contributions from the Bahrenberg, G. and Kuhm, K. 1999: Weltgesell- psychology of place. American Journal of schaft und Region – eine systemtheoretische Psychiatry 153, 1516–23. Perspective. Geographische Zeitschrift 87, –––– 1999: The house of Joshua: meditations on family 193–209. and place. Lincoln and London: University of Becher, T. 1989: Academic tribes and territories: Nebraska Press. intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Gilbert, A. 1988: The new regional geography in Bell, J.E. 2001: Questioning place while building English and French-speaking countries. a regional geography of the former Soviet Progress in Human Geography 12, 208–28. Union. Journal of Geography 100, 78–86. Giordano, B. 2000: Italian regionalism or Bourdieu, P. 1991: Language and symbolic power. ‘Padanian’ nationalism – the political project of Cambridge: Polity Press. the Lega Nord in Italian politics. Political Brenner, N. 1998: Between fixity and motion: Geography 19, 445–71. accumulation, territorial organization and the Gregory, D. 1978: Ideology, science and human historical geography of spatial scales. Environ- geography. London: Hutchinson. ment and Planning D: Society and Space 16, –––– 1998: The geographical discourse of 459–81. modernity. In Explorations in Critical Human –––– 2001: The limits to scale? Methodological Geography, Hettner-Lecture 1997, Department of reflections on scalar structuration. Progress in Geography, University of Heidelberg, 45–67. Human Geography 25, 591–614. Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J., editors 1997: Culture, power, place. Durham and London: Duke Calleya, S.C. 2000: Regionalism in the post-cold war University Press. world. Aldershot: Ashgate. Conversi, D. 1995: Reassessing current theories Harvey, D. 1996: Justice, nature and the geography of of nationalism: nationalism as boundary difference. Oxford: Blackwell. maintenance and creation. Nationalism and Hoekveld, G.A. and Hoekveld-Meijer, G. 1995: Ethnic Politics 1, 73–85. The region as cloister. The relation between society and region reconsidered. Geografiska Dicken, P. and Malmberg, A. 2001: Firms in Annaler B 77, 159–76. territories: a relational perspective. Economic Häkli, J. 1998: Discourse in the production of Geography 77, 345–63. political space: decolonizing the symbolism of Douglas, I., Huggett, R. and Robinson, M., provinces in Finland. Political Geography 17, editors 1996: Companion encyclopedia of 331–63. geography. London: Routledge. Jackson, P. and Penrose, J., editors 1993: Entrikin, J.N. 1989: Place, region and modernity. Constructions of race, place and nation. London: In Agnew, J.A. and Duncan, J.S., editors, The UCL Press. power of place, London: Unwin and Hyman, Johnston, R.J. 1985: Places matter. Irish Geography 30–43. 18, 59–63. –––– 1991: The betweenness of place: towards a –––– 1991: A question of place. Oxford: Blackwell. geography of modernity. Baltimore: Johns Jones, M. 2001: The rise of regional state in Hopkins University Press. economic governance: ‘partnership for –––– 1996: Place and region 2. Progress in Human prosperity’ or new scales of state power. Geography 20, 215–21. Environment and Planning A 33, 1185–211. –––– 1999: Political community, identity and Jones, R. 2001: Institutional identities and the cosmopolitan place. International Sociology 14, shifting scales of state governance in the

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 20, 2011 810 Place and region

United Kingdom. European Urban and Regional Ohmae, K. 1995: The end of the nation-state: the rise Studies 8, 283–96. of regional economies. London: Free Press. Olwig, K.F. and Hastrup, K., editors 1997: Siting Keating, M. 1998: The new regionalism in Western culture: the shifting anthropological object. Europe. Cheltenham: Elgar. London: Routledge. –––– 2001: Rethinking the region. Culture, institutions and economic development in Paasi, A. 1991: Deconstructing regions: notes on Catalonia and Galicia. European Urban and the scales of spatial life. Environment and Regional Studies 8, 217–34. Planning A 23, 239–54. Krasner. S.D. 2001: Problematic sovereignty. New –––– 1996a: Regions as social and cultural York: Columbia University Press. constructs: reflections on recent geographical debates. In Idvall, M. and Salomonsson, A, Le Galès, P. and Lequesne, C., editors 1998: editors, Att skapa en region: om identitet och Regions in Europe. London: Routledge. territorium, Copenhagen: NordRefo, 90–107. Livingstone, D. 1995: The spaces of knowledge: –––– 1996b: Territories, boundaries and conscious- contributions towards a historical geography ness. Chichester: John Wiley. of science. Environment and Planning D: Society –––– 2001: Europe as a social process and and Space 13, 5–34. discourse: considerations of place, boundaries and identity. European Urban and Regional MacLeod, G. 1998: In what sense a region? Place Studies 8, 7–28. hybridity, symbolic shape, and institutional –––– 2002: Bounded spaces in the mobile world: formation in (post-)modern Scotland. Political deconstructing ‘regional identity’. Tijdschrift Geography 17, 833–63. voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93, 137–48. –––– 2001: New regionalism reconsidered: global- –––– 2003: Boundaries in a globalizing world. In ization and the remaking of political economic Anderson, K., Domosh, M., Pile, S. and Thrift, space. International Journal of Urban and Regional N., editors, Handbook of cultural geography, Research 25, 804–29. London: Sage, in press. MacLeod, G. and Jones, M. 2002: Renewing the Pierre, J., editor 2000: Debating governance. geography of regions. Environment and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Planning D: Society and Space 19, 669–95. Pratt, G. 1999: Geographies of identity and Madanipour, A., Hull, A. and Healey, P., editors difference: marking boundaries. In Massey, D., 2001: The governance of place. Aldershot: Allen, J. and Sarre, P., editors, Human geography Ashgate. today, Cambridge: Polity Press, 151–67. Marston, S. 2000: The social construction of scale. Pred, A. 1984: Place as historically contingent Progress in Human Geography 24, 219–42. process: structuration and the time-geography Marston, S. and Smith, N. 2001: States, scales of becoming places. Annals of the Association of and households: limits to scale thinking? A American Geographers 74, 279–97. response to Brenner. Progress in Human Geography 25, 615–19. Radcliffe, S. and Westwood, S. 1996: Remaking Massey, D. 1978: Regionalism: some current the nation: place, identity and politics in Latin issues. Capital and Class 6, 106–26. America. London: Routledge. –––– 1995: The conceptualization of place. In Relph, E. 1996: Place. In Douglas, I., Huggett, R. Massey, D. and Jess, P., editors, A place in the and Robinson, M., editors, Companion encyclo- world, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 45–85. pedia of geography: the environment and Massey, D., Allen, J., and Sarre, P., editors 1999: humankind, London: Routledge, 906–22. Human geography today. Cambridge: Polity Press. Sack, R.D. 1997: Homo geographicus. Baltimore: May, J.A. 1970: Kant’s concept of geography and its Johns Hopkins University Press. relation to recent geographical thought. Toronto: Sayer, A. 1989: The ‘new’ regional geography and University of Toronto Press. problems of narrative. Environment and Minshull, R. 1967: Regional geography. Theory and Planning D: Society and Space 7, 253–76. practice. London: Hutchinson. Scott, A.J. 1998: Regions and the world economy: The Murphy, A. 1991: Regions as social constructs: coming shape of global production, competition and the gap between theory and practice Progress in political order. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Human Geography 15, 22–35. Searle, J. 1995: The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 20, 2011 Anssi Paasi 811

Shapiro, M.J. 1999: Triumphalist geographies. In development. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Featherstone, M. and Lash, S., editors, Spaces of Sociale Geografie 92, 76–87. culture, London: Sage, 159–74. Thrift, N. 1983: On the determination of social Sibley, D. 1995: Geographies of exclusion. London: action in space and time. Environment and Routledge. Planning D: Society and Space 1, 23–57. Smith, J.M. 1996: Ramifications of region and –––– 1994: Taking aim at the heart of region. In senses of place. In Earville, C., Mathewson, K. Gregory, D., Martin, R. and Smith, G., editors, and Kenzer, M.S., editors, Concepts in human Human geography: society, space and social science, geography, London: Rowman and Littlefield, London: Macmillan, 200–31. 189–211. –––– 1998: Towards a new New Regional Storper, M. 1997: The regional world: territorial Geography. Berichte zur deutchsen Landeskunde development in a global economy. New York: 72, Heft 1, 37–46. Guilford Press. –––– 1999: Steps to an ecology of place. In Massey, Swyngedouw, E. 1997: Neither global nor local: D., Allen, J. and Sarre, P., editors, Human ‘glocalization’ and the politics of scale. In Cox, geography today, Cambridge: Polity Press, K.R., editor, Spaces of globalization: reasserting the 295–322. power of the local, New York: Guilford Press, Tomaney, J. and Ward, N., editors 2001: A region 137–66. in transition. North east England at the millennium. Aldershot: Ashgate. Taylor, P.J. 1991: Atheory and practice of regions: Tuan, Y.-F. 1975: Place: an experiential per- the case of Europes. Environment and Planning spective. Geographical Review 65, 151–65. D: Society and Space 9, 183–95. –––– 1994: The state as container: territoriality in Werlen, B. 1997: Sozialgeographie alltäglicher the modern world-system. Progress in Human Regionalisierungen. Band 2: Globalizierung, Geography 18, 151–62. Region und Regionalisierung. Stuttgart: Franz –––– 1999: Places, spaces and Macy’s: place-space Steiner Verlag. tensions in the political geographies of Wollersheim, H-W., Tzscaschel, S., and modernities. Progress in Human Geography 23, Middell, M., editors 1998: Region und 7–26. Identifikation. Leipziger Studien zur Erforschung Terlouw, K. 2001: Regions in geography and von Regionbezogenen Identifikationprozessen, the regional geography of semiperipheral Band 1, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 20, 2011