Chapter 08 CULTURAL DIMENSIONS in HUMAN GEOGRAPHY Godwin O
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328826697 Chapter 08 CULTURAL DIMENSIONS IN HUMAN GEOGRAPHY Godwin O. Ikwuyatum Chapter · October 2018 CITATIONS READS 0 798 1 author: Godwin O. Ikwuyatum University of Ibadan 23 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Environmental Disasters, Conflict and Forced Migration View project Migration and Return Migration as Drivers of Rural Cosmopolitanism in Benue State, Nigeria View project All content following this page was uploaded by Godwin O. Ikwuyatum on 09 November 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Chapter 08 CULTURAL DIMENSIONS IN HUMAN GEOGRAPHY Godwin O. Ikwuyatum Introduction Human Geography’s focus on location provides a basis to appreciate culture, communication and cognitive plan. Combing information about groups, culturally prominent individuals, ethnicity, religion, language, social relationships, and political allegiance at a granular family-group level allows analysts and operators to visualize a network of dynamic relationships situated in geographic locations (Sutherlin, 2017). This exposition by Sutherlin reflects the significance of Cultural Geography as a sub- discipline of Human Geography, which has been defined and conceptualized in a variety of ways. Cosgrove (1994) defined it as 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”. Another school of thought is of the opinion that cultural geography is that branch of geography, that views the world as inherently social, spatial, and political that examines issues relating to the spatiality of identities, inequalities, and power across multiple scales, by asking such questions as: How does colonialism pattern differences between the global North and South and within both? What difference does it make to society that women tend to have been associated more with ‘home’ than men? Why has the education system largely failed to reduce class inequalities in societies? Notorn (2016) on his part opined that “cultural geography is concerned with making sense of people and the places they occupy through analyses and understandings of cultural processes, cultural landscapes, and cultural identities”. The effect of culture in human geography is so prominent, that at times it becomes unclear and difficult to differentiate between cultural and social geography as the lines between them are on the whole unclear. For example, research on migration, livelihood, and sexuality, household and human health among others has social component as well as cultural ones. The uncertainty and the enlarged sphere of cultural influence in analysis and explanation in Human Geography have made cultural geography a modern-day sub-discipline of interest. This chapter takes into consideration the following main beliefs: First, it is historically sensitive; that is, the works introduced begin with traditional cultural geography and moved on to new cultural geography. Second, it is philosophically situated within a structure of the idea of changes in human geography. Third, it is focused on expressions that are apparently cultural (e.g. literature, art, music) rather than social or social-cultural (e.g. disability, sexuality, diaspora). The genesis and development of Cultural Geography is worth tracing for better understanding of its epistemology and dynamic nature. This branch of human geography emerged as an American tradition of scholarship linked closely to the mid-twentieth century work of Carl Sauer, who defined the landscape as “the defining unit of geographic study; that cultures and societies are creations of the landscape which they also shame; and the interaction between the ‘natural’ landscape and human communities creating the ‘cultural landscape”. The Carl Sauer school of thought of Cultural geographers focused essentially on studying the range of human interventions in transforming the ‘natural’ landscape, and were thus most interested in quantifying material culture, for example, buildings/architectures, agricultural technologies and other industries (Merle, 2010). During the peak of the ‘quantitative revolution’ in the 1960s and 1970s, interest in cultural geography declined as human geographers turned their attention to the development of human geography as a ‘spatial science’. However, the critique of positivism in geography throughout the 1980’s, brought about the transformation of cultural geography in North America particularly in the United Kingdom, into what is now known as the ‘new’ cultural geography. The discipline had a 1 different theoretical assumptions, methods and subjects from those of the Berkeley School (traditional cultural geography) in the 1980s and 1990s. Three aspects of cultural geography can be clearly identified: First, the ‘traditional’ cultural geography, sometimes referred to as the ‘Berkeley School,’ second, is the ‘new’ cultural geography while the third, is ‘more-than-representational’ geographies (Lorimer, 2005). The ‘new’ cultural geographers analyzed culture in contemporary and urban societies, and focused primarily on investigating non-material culture, for example, identity, ideology, power, meaning, values among others, rather than focusing on material culture, mainly of non-modern and rural societies; they integrated new themes, such as, colonialism and post-colonialism; postmodernism; popular culture and consumption; gender and sexuality; ‘race’, anti- racism and ethnicity; ideology; language; and media; and incorporating different theoretical traditions, including Marxist political-economic models, feminist theory, post-colonial theory, post-structuralism and psychoanalysis, among others (Merle, 2010). In addition, politics of identity and the construction of identity are some of the issues of interest interrogated by the new cultural geographers. The critiques within the new cultural geographers camp, saw some of its ideas on identity and space as static; hence, the development of the ‘non-representational theory’ by Nigel Thrift, who himself was one of the prominent critiques of the ‘new cultural geography. While some of the themes of ‘new’ cultural geography are still of interest, , through his development of ‘non-representational theory’, is a post-structuralist theory that challenged those using social theory and conducting geographical research to move beyond an interest in identity politics and other static representations of culture. The non-representational theory focuses upon practices, that is, how human and nonhuman formations are enacted or performed and not simply on what is produced; on hybrid formations which is similar to ‘hybrid geographies’ developed by Sarah Whatmore, where she prompted cultural geographers to attend to the ‘more-than-human’ geographies in which we live, ‘things taking place’, (Harrison, 2000; Dewsbury 2000, 2003; McCormack 2002, 2005; Merle, 2010). Some commentators on the non-representative idea seek to include an empirical on embodied practices and dynamic processes, because ‘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 (Nash, 2000). This has led to the suggestion that ‘more-than-representational’ is a preferable term for this branch of geography, as it seeks to better understand “our self-evidently more-than-human, more-than-textual, multisensual worlds” (Lorimer, 2005, p.83). Cultural Geography is thus a vital branch of Human Geography. The Meaning and Concept of Culture ‘Culture’ is the controlling factor, in this sub-discipline of human geography, and it requires a comprehensive and definite conceptualization. The question then is what is ‘Culture’? Culture has been known to be associated with civilization and religious devotion from history, the central word ‘cult’ in the subject. Culture from the 16th century up to the 19th century was employed to facilitate the development of human mind and individual manners through learning (Sewell Jr., 2018) and has subsequently been used to reflect the development of society as a whole. Tylor (2010 ) in his book ‘Primitive Culture’ described culture as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and other capabilities and habits acquired by a person as a member of a society”. The import of Tylor’s description is that culture is a complex term, a fact further alluded to by Williams (1983) who opined that, culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language and the whole way of life. Cultural studies emerged as a discipline in the last quarter of the 19th century. Culture is a person’s creation and beyond that it is a social reality, which cannot be created by individuals in isolation, but a synergy of people’s experiences. In addition, the fundamentals which make up culture are inherited from the past, tied to the experience of present-day associations and to dreams and plans that have to do with the future. Culture and cultures are shaped by network of intercommunication between and among people with commonalities and/or similarities, i.e. people who speak the same language, similar family structures and attend the same school,