the spaces of nature: introduction

THe SpAceS oF nATUre: InTroDUcTIon

© The author 2014Geografiska Annaler: Series B © 2014 Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography

37

THe SpAceS oF nATUre: InTroDUcTIonby

Tiina peil

peIL, T. (2014): ‘The spaces of nature: introduction’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 96 (1): 37–39.

ABSTrAcT. The articles in this section aim at critical reapprais-al of space from the viewpoint of the materiality of human action, which is underpinned by a special focus on its dealings with na-ture. Space is primarily viewed by others than geographers and/or from outside Scandinavian and Anglo-American research. The role of language and culture, as well as using the possibilities of ecosemiotics grown out of the Tartu–Moscow school, is highlighted in an attempt to enliven discussions of lived space and human rela-tionships with nature.

Keywords: nature, anthropological, archaeological, ecosemiotic approach to nature and space

The concepts of nature, environment and landscape are used interchangeably across a wide spectrum of academic fields, or used with a particular twist characteristic of the discipline (Setten 2005; Inglis and Bone 2006; crouch 2010; Howard et al. 2013) but also widely applied in environmental policy and popularly, for instance, in the media with additional connotations. Multiple perceptions, as well as the ambiguity or porosity of the concepts have impaired their functionality. Sarah Whatmore (2012) has re-cently called such terms the interdisciplinary in- betweens, arguing that they are so loaded and bring in so much baggage that they should best be avoided. originally these concepts may have been crucial in contributing to the understanding of the human role in earth processes but, paradoxically, the multiple usages may have reinforced the view of humans as external to the natural system and advanced the an-thropo- and eurocentric reductions of explanation to culture, or advanced ideas about nature as a resource to be learned about, experienced, and remade. The listed terms may thus be misused and over-defined in some cases, but clearly these concepts do not re-spect disciplinary boundaries and are of wide inter-est. Similarly, space is widely used, but in everyday life or research rarely considered for its independent qualities, although it has been one of the central, de-fining concepts for geographers (Massey 2005) and philosophers. What all these terms have in common is that they are more generally taken as a category of con-ceptions that act as a background, or a context for

the meaning of other objects. This idea of a neu-tral background is increasingly questioned by ge-ographers and others as the intentionally designed relations between humans and non-humans, and un-intentional interactions as well as resistance have come into focus together with the issues of being re-sponsible for the non-human that was long rendered to the background (Massey 2004; Whatmore 2006). Geography has long prided itself on the disci-pline’s ability to cross (disciplinary) borders and look at the directions others have taken. In this, geo-graphers build their arguments on the cultural mate-rialism of Denis cosgrove, theorization of nature as presented by neil Smith or the non- representational theory as promoted by nigel Thrift, and on the mate-rialist semiotics or hybrid geographies as presented by Sarah Whatmore. Invigorating impulses have come from other fields, primarily from (eco-)semi-otics, anthropology, from the growing field of envi-ronmental humanities, as well as the well established field of urban studies. This turn within geography is followed in the debate to find the geographical roots of the conceptual frame (for landscape, e.g., Wylie 2007; della Dora 2011; Waage 2012; Howard et al. 2013) but they also incorporate discussions of the epistemological and ontological status of nature, the production of socio- nature and the eco-semi-otic view of landscape (Baker 1999; Braun 2005; Lindström et al. 2011). This goes hand-in-hand with certain responsibility to advance dialogue and broader discussion that also is the ambitious aim of this special collection of articles in this issue of Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography. on a modest scale, the aim here is to present the trends in examining nature and the spaces of people discovered and invigorated by (eco-)semioticians, archaeologists, and urbanists and to present defi-nite application possibilities in the analysis of na-ture–culture relationships and examining the spaces of nature (and culture). The contributions (with one exception) come from other disciplines than geogra-phy, but focus on issues that have high relevance for geographers and are anchored in the very core of the discussions about space and thus geography. In their eagerness to focus on what has long

Tina peil GAB201010-9finalTp_e

TIINA PEIL


38

rendered to the background, a multitude of new derivatives and combinations of these forenamed terms have sprung into existence, creating new con-cepts which, in their turn, every discipline tends to apply a different meaning. Additionally the objec-tive is to draw attention to the significance of lan-guage and cultural context in using concepts and theories. Since all the authors have languages other than english, languages not belonging to the Indo-european family at all, as their mother tongue, they are well aware of the difficulties but also the possi-bilities that explaining context provides. Writing in another language means more than simply translat-ing words in a sense that terms are understood differ-ently from the original, or vice versa, replaced and thus things are truly lost in translation. reflecting on other cultural contexts in other languages may also bring fresh ideas and interpretations into main-stream english (and Scandinavian) studies of land-scape, nature and space, as well as force the authors to critically review their approach. Semiotics, especially ecosemiotics, can be use-ful here. It is believed to provide a systemic way to analyse and understand the characteristics of signs expressing meaning and therefore its wider adap-tation in geographical studies may turn out to be fruitful. The Tartu–Moscow semiotic school of cul-ture and its application in the study of semiosphere is especially noteworthy and advances a more con-tinental approach than is common among Anglo-American and Scandinavian researchers. In this issue, after a general discussion of eco-semiotic principles as a possible basis for such explorations grown out of this tradition (Maran and Kull 2014), these signs are sought in very different settings and times, including early-agricultural (Hosoya 2014) and present-day Japan (Lindström 2014), as well as a post-industrial city (pikner 2014). The authors talk about the environment, routine-scape, or lived space as home and thus place humans back into na-ture. At least, as being part of nature which, never-theless, is socially conditioned co-production of a space between people and a whole variety of other living kinds and shaped by their relationships. This sense of embedding people in nature makes for frag-mentary space both lived and practiced, always in the making, never fixed or passive. Finally, the dimension of time is added and the processes are considered by discussing soci-etal change in space based on examples as far apart as the introduction of agriculture in Japan and the former industrial sites in a post-socialist city. In

expanding the geographical scope to cover areas outside europe the setting is highlighted, opening up alternative views on the environment associ-ated with different cultures. The routine day-to-day activity patterns in space as well as the more spe-cific rituals altering the formation of that space have much in common (although taking different shapes) around the world and throughout history to contrib-ute to building a multidimensional frame for exam-ining human and non-human relationships, discuss the history of concepts in various linguistic contexts, but also the way of practicing research, especially critically reviewing the way of asking questions. The articles aim at critical reappraisal of the concepts and present a criticism of analysing space as consisting of purely cultural objects in the spirit of more-than-human geographies. The signify-ing and modifying activities of culture influencing the environment, human perception of the envi-ronment, and the bodily engagement with the envi-ronment are highlighted. They aspire to reach new ground where the interdisciplinary in-betweens are explored fruitfully from different angles to pro-vide cross- fertilization instead of extra baggage. As such, this themed section aims to enliven geogra-phy and to make other disciplines aware of space matters. recognition of ways in which knowledge and experiences are co-created in particular situa-tions transforming certain spaces, nature and society by practice becoming routine, especially considered by Tarmo pikner and Leo Aoi Hosoya, is one of the central themes in this section. Such vernacular ecol-ogies of place with the affective characteristics of space are also discussed by Kati Lindström, helping to connect human semiotic systems and ecological systems.

AcknowledgementsThe special theme section contains articles originally presented at the centre of excellence in cultural Theory (cecT) annual conference Spatiality and visualization of culture/nature relationships, held in Tallinn, estonia on 22–24 october 2009. The organ-ization as well as the preparation and editing of the articles were supported by the european regional Development Fund of the european Union. I am in huge debt to Mats Widgren for the organizational help and exchange of ideas, and to the referees, ed-itors of the journal, and the secretaries of the SSAG for easing the way into finalizing the collection of articles. The authors have also earned special thanks

THe SpAceS oF nATUre: InTroDUcTIon


39

for their patience during the long process of putting this section together and willingness to improve on their contributions.

Tiina PeilCentre of Excellence inCultural TheoryEstoniaEmail: [email protected]

ReferencesBAKer, v. r. (1999): ‘Geosemiosis’, Geological Society of

America Bulletin 111 (5): 633–645.BrAUn, B. (2005): ‘environmental issues: writing a more- than-

human urban geography’, Progress in Human Geography 29 (5): 635–650.

croUcH, D. (2010): ‘Flirting with space: thinking landscape re-lationally’, Cultural Geographies 17 (1): 5–18.

della DorA, v. (2011): Imagining Mount Athos: Visions of a Holy Place from Homer to World War II. University of virginia press, charlottesville, vA.

HoSoYA, L. A. (2014): ‘The “routine-scape” and social structur-alization in the formation of Japanese agricultural societies’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 96 (1): 67–82.

HoWArD, p., THoMpSon, I. and WATerTon, e. (eds) (2013): The Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies. routledge, London.

InGLIS, D. and Bone, J. (2006): ‘Boundary maintenance, border crossing and the nature/culture divide’, European Journal of Social Theory 9 (2): 272–287.

LInDSTröM, K. (2014): ‘Internal and external perception in conceptualizing home landscapes: Japanese examples’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 96 (1): 51–65.

LInDSTröM, K., KULL, K. and pALAnG, H. (2011): ‘Semiotic study of landscapes: an overview from semiology to ecosemi-otics’, Sign Systems Studies 39 (2–4): 12–36.

MArAn, T. and KULL, K. (2014): ‘ecosemiotics: main princi-ples and current developments’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 96 (1): 41–50.

MASSeY, D. (2004): ‘Geographies of responsibility’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 86 (1): 5–18.

MASSeY, D. (2005): For Space. Sage, London.pIKner, T. (2014): ‘enactments of urban nature: consider-

ing industrial ruins’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 96 (1): 83–95.

SeTTen, G. (2005): ‘Who owns the concepts? notes on the prod-uct, practice, property and power of writing’, in peIL, T. and JoneS, M. (eds): Landscape, Law and Justice. novus, oslo, pp. 3–13.

WAAGe, e. r. H. (2012): ‘Landscape in the sagas of Icelanders: the concepts of land and landsleg’, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 66 (4): 177–192.

WHATMore, S. (2006): ‘Materialist returns: practising cultural geography in and for a more-than-human world’, Cultural Geographies 13 (4): 600–609.

WHATMore, S. (2012): ‘practicing more-than-human geog-raphies: thinking with/through materials’, Alexander von Humboldt Lecture Series 2011–2012 on Spatial practices, 28 november 2011 [online]. UrL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvxfHv4vI6Y [accessed 4 February 2013].

WYLIe, J. (2007): Landscape. routledge, London.

the spaces of nature: introduction

Documents