CHAPTER 3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.3 Place and Identity
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3.3 Place and Identity
3.3.1 Humanistic Geographical Perspective
Tuan (1974) termed Topophilia to describe humans’ relations with places. He defined Topophilia as all of the human being’s affective ties with the material environment, and people’s relationships to places differ significantly in intensity, subtlety, and mode of expression (Tuan,1974).
According to Tuan (1974), the concept of a home holds profound meaning for people since a home contains the locus of one’s memories and livelihood means.
People’s concept of home triggers and builds up their place identity and a sense of belonging to places they regard as homes. Moreover, home is the first organization that humans get involved. This study intends to find out the process in which urban indigenous young people’s identity of their original community as a home in their life experience. Place is often seen as the “locus of collective memories” – a site where identity is created through the construction of memories linking a group of people into the past (Harvey,1996)
Furthermore, Cresswell (2004) elaborated the meaning of home as the most important place than any other places for the human to develop identity. Home is an exemplary kind of place where people feel a sense of attachment and rootedness.
Home, more than anywhere else, is seen as a center of meaning and field of care.
(Cresswell, 2004)
Gaston Bachelard (1994) sees a home as the first space that functions as the first world or first universe that forms peoples’ understandings of all space outside. Home
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
is a crucial space for an individual to understand the world. Thus, the concept of a home holds significance in people’s place identity. Where an individual comes from largely depends on how s/he perceives where their home is.
Tuan points out that human’s identification with the familiar nurturing place has a biological basis (Rose, 1993). However, many women do not relate to such a positive notion about home. The discussion about home and place above focuses on how the meaning of place can positively contribute to one’s mental development. On the contrary, Harvey (1996) is critical about modern industrialization, which separate people from the process of production (with a place) and they encounter as a finished commodity does it emerge. Such a way of production prevents people from linking a place with a process of a product, a trait of globalization.
Human nowadays, long for a diversity of places due to the architectural and commercial uniformity in many cities based on Western (more specifically, American) economic and political paradigm (Casey, 1997). Similarly, the effort to invoke a sense of place, and the pass is now deliberate and conscious. (Harvey, 1996) Such a
phenomenon has activated a desire for people to find an identity of a place. Casey's discussion about the identity of a place provides a macro-perspective on why people want to keep a specialty of a place, which he later has elaborated, place “brings with it the very elements sheared off in the planiformity of the site: identity, character, nuance” (Casey, 1997, p. xiii).
Additionally, Manzo (2003) highlights place identity in relation with time and its property in her writing that.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
“There are times when we grapple with identity and self-development through our relationship with places. This research suggests that our feelings about places can be conscious” (p.53)
Furthermore, identity is a dynamic process that provides a balance between rootedness and uprootedness (Erikson,1964).
Therefore, urban Tjuvecekadan youths live in cities with the growing sameness of urban areas such as globalized contexts. Their needs of place identity will take form throughout their life. Furthermore, their perceived specialties about their communities will unfold their place identity, that entails their relationship between their original community and city, and their intention of returning to their hometowns after years of living in cities. Their identity in New Tjuvecekadan is dynamic.
An identity to a place is an agency established through people’s interactions with places, first people establish a bond between them called place attachment, and subsequently, people's identity to a place will take the form (Hernández, Hidalgo，
Salazar-Laplace, & Hess, 2007).
However, in the study of place, there are various concepts to address people's interaction with a place. Such great varieties of definitions have puzzled many researchers (Lewicka, 2011). Therefore, it is essential to clarify the concept used.
Stedman (2002) has defined the place attachment as a bond between people and place involving both cognition and affect resting on symbolic meanings, with identity being a crucial component. Such bound allows people to establish preference with a
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
specific area to remain or stay because they feel comfortable and safe (Hernández et al., 2007). Additionally, Liu and Chu (2011) argue that place attachment entails safety and comfort people feel in a specific place, making people want to stay in the place.
In terms of the place identity, Proshansky (1978) has provided a broad and theoretical definition as below.
“Those dimensions of self that define the individual’s personal identity in relation to the physical environment by means of a complex pattern of conscious and unconscious ideas, beliefs, preference, feelings, values, goals and
behavioral tendencies and skills relevant to this environment”
(p.155).
Furthermore, Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff (1983) defined place identity as a
“substructure of the self-identity of the person consisting of, broadly conceived cognitions about the physical world in which the individual lives” (p. 59).
“These cognitions represent memories, ideas, feelings, attitude, values, preferences, meanings, and conceptions of behavior and experience which relate to the variety of and complexity of physical settings that define the day-to-day existence of every human being” (p. 59).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
“The core of these cognitions is the ‘environmental past’
of the person; a past consisting of places, spaces, and their properties which have served instrumentally in the
satisfaction of the person’s biological, psychological, social, and cultural needs” (p.59).
Also, place identity is a component of personal identity, a process by which, through interaction with places, people describe themselves in terms of belonging to a specific place (Hernández et al., 2007)
To sum up, place identity is one of the aspects of personal identity (Proshansky, 1978; Proshansky et al., 1983; Hernández et al., 2007) and it forms both consciously and unconsciously (Proshansky, 1978) involving people’s past to a place and the process of their interaction with places, people describe themselves in terms of belonging to a specific place (Hernández et al., 2007).
Furthermore, place identity is developed by thinking and talking about places through a process of distancing, which allows for reflection and appreciation of places (Proshansky et al., 1983).
There is a salient connection between place attachment and place identity as Florek (2011) has stated that “place attachment may contribute to the formation, maintenance, and preservation of the identity of a person, group, or culture” (p. 347).
It may also be that place attachment fosters individual, group, and cultural self-esteem, self-worth, and self-pride (Low & Altman, 1992).
As for the sense of place, Knox and Marston (2007) define “sense of place” as
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the people’s emotional evocation of experiences and memories they associate with a place and attachment of the symbolism derived from a place. Sense of place also can refer to the character of a place as seen by outsiders: its distinctive physical
characteristics and/or its inhabitants (Knox＆Marston 2007). In the Dictionary of Human Geography, “sense of place” is defined as
“The attitudes and feelings that individuals and groups hold vis a` vis the geographical areas in which they live. It further commonly suggests intimate, personal, and emotional relationships between self and place” (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts & Whatmore, 2009, p. 676).
In conclusion, place identity focus on social relationships with people in a specific place. In contrast, place attachment emphasizes people’s effective bonds, for example, safety, and comfort to a place. Finally, sense of place is a dynamic process to a place, and feature the quality of both place attachment and place identity (Liu&
Chu, 2011).
From a humanistic geographical perspective, place contains positive
connotations. People’s identification and attachment to a place base on their shared experiences, internalized history with a mindset to regard place to have a specificity due to the physical characteristics and a boundary between the insiders and outsiders.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3.3.2 Feminist Perspective— Concept of Home
Home can be a place full of conflict, lack of care, and nurturing, which humanitarian geographers have neglected (Rose, 1993). Nevertheless, a black
feminist bell hooks associates home as a place of resistance and empowerment (hooks, 1990; Yong, I.M. 1997). Since Hooks, her life growing up as a black kid in the
oppression of white supremacy, home, for her and black people, is a place of care and relative freedom from the outside world. Especially for black maids, spent most of their time nurturing and caring for white families when they longed to have time and energy to give to their own (hooks, 1990). Home became a place that allows them to spend time for themselves, and do things they like to do. To hooks, home not only provides safety but also provides resistance with all activities that go into making a home in an oppressive white world (Rose, 1993).
In practice, there is a variety of reasons to cause people to move from one place to another. The push and pull forces of living in an urban and rural area, family plays a fundamental role in whether to remain in the original community or move to a city, therefore, affect how urban indigenous youths perceive their homes. For urban indigenous peoples, home is central in deciding whether to live in a city or remain in their original community. Thus, individuals' concept of home is of their identity to a place.
Despite its positive and negative connotations depending on an individual's narratives, a home is a place that holds great significance, mentally and biologically.
Additionally, the Push and Pull forces can be an illustrative tool in understanding urban indigenous peoples moving experiences between cities and their hometowns,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
which unfold their place identity. The sense of rootedness sheds light on understanding how urban indigenous youths perceive their homes.
3.3.3 Social Geographical Perspective — ‘A Global Sense of Place’
Social Geographer, Doreen Massey’s work ‘A Global Sense of Place’ (1994) provided a counter-argument from the humanistic perspective of place. Her work reflected on three issues. How can people rethink their view of place to be progressive and outward-looking? How can people substantiate their place identity if there are no boundaries, no fixity, and no difference? And how can people hold onto the
rootedness of a place without being defensive and reactionary? Her perspective specified the era of globalization in a capital context in which people can travel easily as a result of time-space compression, and furthermore, provide a progressive concept of sense of place contrasting the humanistic geographer’s view of place to be
introverted. Massey’s emphasis on place is not a limited and permanent entity but an extrovert changeable concept.
The time-space compression enabling globalization and people’s movement for places to places carry power flow, which Massey (1994) termed the concept “power geometry.” Because some people can take advantage of time-space compression, but some are trapped by it (Massey, 1994). Additionally, capital is not the only factor that limits people’s movement but gender.
“Survey after survey has shown how women’s mobility, for
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
physical violence to being ogled at or made to feel quite simply 'out of place' - not by 'capital,' but by men.” (Massey, 1994. p.148)
The essence of power geometry of time-space compression is socially
differentiated. (Massey, 1994). People are linked by the experiences of time-space compression (Massey, 1994). And such linkages between people imply economic, cultural, and political relations (Massey, 1994). And social relations are dynamic (Massey, 1994).
In terms of Massey’s view on place specificity, she (1994) argued that
“What gives a place its specificity is not some
long-internalized history but the fact that it is constructed out of a particular constellation of social relations, meeting and weaving together at a particular locus. In other words, it is the social relations of a given place that provide the place its uniqueness. Social relations are each individual's
connection within a place and also stretch out from each individual's connection to the outside world.” (Massey, 1994, p.154)
Therefore, according to Massey (1994), places are not static; they are the process of social interrelations. In this interpretation, place is indeed a meeting place for
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
human’s social interrelations to take form (Massey, 1994), which rejects humanistic perspective on places having single, essential identities, and common-shared sense of place people among people.
Furthermore, Massey criticized people's internalized history about a place where humanistic geographers valued a great deal not relevant in an era of globalization.
Such internalized history about a place is reactionary (Massey, 1994). It can be understood as various introverted connections between people and a place, such as historical, familial, emotional, mythical, cognitive, or material connections (Cross, 2001). Moreover, Massey (1994) argued that places are not defined by their boundaries; places are defined by the particularity of linkage to the outside, which constitutes the place. Therefore, the boundary of the place is defined by the mixture of social relations within a locality, as well as places’ interrelations (Massey,1994).
Contrary to the humanistic perspective, it suggests that the identity of
place/sense of place is established by historical roots and internalized origins of the place. Since the essence of place is people’s social interrelations and interrelations between places –not only internal relations; places also contain global social relations – the global and internal relations of place. Places do not have a single unique identity;
however, they are full of internal conflicts (Massey,1994). Whereas the humanistic perspective suggests that places have boundaries with lines around themselves.
Massey rejected the idea of place attachment. That is people establish an attachment to place where people feel comfortable and safe because such preference to a place is rarely permanent, as there are potential conflicts within a place. According to Massey,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
interrelation from within and outside a community, which precludes the formation of a shared-homogenous sense of place. At the same time, peoples’ social relations are ever-changing; therefore, the development and alterations of social relations within and outside a community would influence people’s sense of place.
Furthermore, the specificity of place is continually reproduced by both social relations among people and places (Massey,1994). Such dynamic does not result from some long, internalized history (Massey,1994), which humanistic geographers deem as essential factors for humans in forming a sense place.
According to Massey’s Global Sense of Place
• Places are not static; they are process of social interrelations.
• Places are not defined by its boundaries. Places are defined by the particularity of linkage to the ‘outside’ which constitutes the place.
• Places do not have single, unique ‘identities’; they are full of internal conflicts.
• There is still a specificity and uniqueness of a place. However, it is not produced by a long, internalized history. The specificity is produced by a unique constellation of local and global social relations.
(Massey, 1994, pp.155-156)
I find Massey’s global sense of place applicable in shedding light on urban Tjuvecekadan young people’s sense of New Tjuvecekadan.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Based on Massey’s discussion, I created a conceptual framework, see Figure 2.
The three pairs of arrows in Figure 2 represent the three participants,’ namely, Mika’s, John’s, and Gary’s life trajectory. The item (1) in Figure 2 is the participants’ social interrelation within New Tjuvecekadan. Since they all schooled in urban areas, education constitutes a significant part of their social interrelation outside New Tjuvecekadan. Plus, they were in school before, during, and after participating in the Tjuvecekadan Youth Project. The item (2) in Figure 2 signifies the participants’ life experiences moving back-and-forth between New Tjuvecekadan and their urban dwellings while schooling in an urban area. Lastly, the item (3) is the participants’
social interrelation outside New Tjuvecekadan and their sense of New Tjuvecekadan after participating in the Tjuvecekadan Youth Project.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Figure 3. Conceptual framework