THE REGION AS A CONCEPT: TRADITIONAL AND CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW
KAROL KASALA1,*, MIROSLAV ŠIFTA2
1 Department of Regional Geography, Protection and Planning of the Landscape, Faculty of Natural Science, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia
2 Department of Social Geography and Regional Development, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Czechia * Corresponding autor: karolkasala@gmail.com
AUC Geographica, 52, No. 2, 2017, pp. 208-218 :
ABSTRACT
The main goal of this article is to assess and compare the various understandings of the concept of the region. The aim is to characterize the concept of a region as well as how its meaning has changed through geographical history, to mention the most important personalities and how they understood the concept of region. The article presents two different ways of looking at a region: 1) the region in the sense of traditional regional geography; 2) the region in the new regional geography (region understood as a social construct). The article then com-pares the two approaches and outlines both their advantages and their disadvantages. The first section presents a brief overview of how the understanding of the concept of region developed. The following part focuses on development of the concept of region as a social construct, especially in the context of the development of new regional geography, cultural turn and new regionalism. Finally, the article emphasizes the essential complementarity of the two approaches and briefly proposes a more complex scheme of analysis of a region.
Keywords: region; traditional regional geography; new regional geography; region as a social construct
1. Introduction
“Geography changes as society changes.” (Livingstone 1992: 347)
According to its advocates, regional geography is the core and heart of geography, the highest art of a geogra- pher and the reason for its existence, and the advocates call for “back to the basics” (Whittlesey 1954; Hart 1982; Watson 1983; Lewis 1985). According to spatial scientists, regional geography is not exact, it does not search for laws and regularities, and its lack of a theoretical and method- ological framework excludes it from the portfolio of exact sciences (Fred K. Schaeffer [1953] and other advocates of geography as a spatial science). Due to its philosoph- ic-paradigmatic background there are also different views of the conceptual shape of regional geography, its idio- graphic or idiographic-nomothetic character, its focus on explanation or understanding and so on.
Many authors have participated in the discussion about the character of regional geography (Hartshorne 1939; Whittlesey 1954; Hart 1982; Johnston, Hau- er, Hoekveld 1990; Entrikin, Brunn 1989; Nir 1990; Wood 1999; Claval 2007). On one hand there are the ever-strengthening positions of the advocates of “tradi- tional regional geography” who emphasize a “return to the basics”, “heart of geography”, “nature of geography” (Hartshorne 1939), and a return to Hartshorne (Entrik- in, Brunn 1989). Many of them stress the uniqueness of locations: “Hartshorne is correct about the uniqueness of locations” (Bunge 1979: 173). Their arguments are also supported by an emphasis on the importance of local scale in postmodern geography (Duncan 1996). On the other hand, there is a new (reconstituted, transformed, reconstructed) regional geography (Gilbert 1988) which started the exactization process of regional geography. This has meant there is a visible shift of approach in regional geography, mostly a more significant orientation towards processes and contexts (Tomaney 2009)
The difference between traditional regional geogra- phy and new regional geography (social-constructivist approaches in regional geography) has kept increasing gradually (Paasi 2009). The division of regional geogra- phy into two different approaches brought about several discrepancies. As a consequence, it influenced regional geographical practice and the way a region was under- stood, i.e.: what is a region (a complex unit or a social construct); what isn’t a region (the social-constructivist new regional geography does not take nature sufficiently into account); how to investigate a region (social-con- structivist approaches emphasize that contexts and underlying processes are important, whereas tradition- al regional geography is rather a descriptive science). Traditional regional geography uses traditional meth- ods (statistical analysis, fieldwork, regionalization etc.), whereas new regional geography uses qualitative and contextual methods. Traditional regional geography attempts to “see the region objectively”, whereas new approaches see the region more subjectively. This has led to our decision to focus on the meaning of the concept of region, and to focus on how this meaning developed over time. We also wanted to provide a comparison of basic approaches.
In this article, we focus on the changes in understand- ing the concept of region as follows: its complexity; its synthetic character; its unity; the role of man, nature and society in the formation of region; the interconnections of its individual parts; uniqueness; dynamic vs. static character; region as a result of development vs. region as a process. The difference between the traditional concept of a region and a region as a social construct (as under- stood in new regional geography) is as follows
Traditional concept of a region A region as a social construct
Complex Predominantly social
Static Dynamic
As a consequence of development As a consequence of process
Understanding Explanation and understanding
Actors: man/society and nature Actors: society
Geographical spheres: physical- geographical; economic; social;
cultural; political Geographical spheres:
predominantly social and political
Unique, as a consequence
of unique combination of phenomena Unique, as a consequence of factors and processes
As well as the term region, we also use the terms land- scape (landscape, according to Carl Ortwin Sauer can similarly be understood as a region) and place (“Even for many new regional geographers, the meanings of region and place are more or less similar or overlapping”; Paasi 2009: 224).
This article was written by two authors. One is a region- al geographer and presents his view of a region from the point of view of traditional regional geography. The oth- er is a social geographer and represents the approach of social constructivism in new regional geography.
The resulting article focuses on how the understand- ing of the concept of a region developed throughout the history of geography. The main goal is to assess the var- ious understandings of the concept of the region and to present the most appropriate conceptual framework for a region and understanding it. The authors attempt to find answers to the (following) research questions: How has the meaning (understanding) of the concept of region developed over time? How was the concept of region per- ceived by significant geographers? What were the weak- nesses and strengths of the main approaches? What are the main contributions of the main approaches? How can the positive aspects (those bringing some benefits) of both approaches be used when characterizing a region? In the conclusion, we offer a proposal for an analysis (and of synthesis) of a region, using the methodological con- tributions of both traditional and social-constructivist understandings of a region. The article takes the form of a discussion between the supporters of the traditional meaning vs. supporters of the region as a social construct (Hart 1982; Hartshorne 1939; Johnston, Hauer, Hoekveld 1990; Murphy 1991; Paasi 1986; Sauer 1925; Semian 2016; Whittlesey 1954 etc.). This provides an analysis of the concept of a region in individual approaches, as well as an analysis of the concept of the region by differ- ent geographers. The comparison of different approach- es (traditional vs. new regional geography) is based on an analysis of the strengths (primarily) and weaknesses. The strengths and weaknesses of these approaches (to the region) relate to the theoretical-methodological area (complex vs partial understanding of a region; static vs dynamic region; description vs contextual and processual understanding) and to applications (used in particular in regional development).
Full Text
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق