Place and the mind body duality

I was recently looking through the website of Yi-Fu Tuan, a humanist geographer I have long admired and one often described, in academic circles certainly, as a leading authority on place.  I was drawn to a particular posting on his site, a transcript of his farewell lecture delivered at the University of Wisconsin-Madison about a year ago.

In this talk he expounds on an idea that I think is seminal to his thinking and which moreover has significant implications for my own ideas on place: the inherent duality of human mind (consciousness) and body (physical presence).  Tuan’s basic premise is that as humans our minds often operate independently of our physical selves; that is, we can easily be “somewhere else” though physically situated in a specific location.  The wandering mind.  It happens all of the time.

For Tuan, mind and body are reasonably manifestations of the broader concepts of space and place: “…since the human individual is both body and mind, he can also be said to be both ‘place’ and ‘space.’  His body, tied by his senses to the environment, is place; his mind, freed from such sensory ties, is space.” [Tuan, Yi-Fu. “Space, Place, and Nature: The Farewell Lecture.” April 4, 2014.  http://www.yifutuan.org/dear_colleague.htm ]

I find that idea worth further consideration for several reasons.  Firstly, I admire it for its inherent simplicity.  In its economy of words it encapsulates a particularly insightful and far-reaching truth.

I also find it interesting in that it essentially turns my terms on their head.  For in my discourse, place is dependent on human consciousness.  It always sources to some extent on the inherent identity and character of a physical location, but it is given life and full realisation within the mind of the observer. It is the end state in my view, whereas Tuan’s use implies it is a constituent component.

Likewise, though I haven’t substantially worked through this yet, I would be more inclined to associate the term space with a physical location and more than that, one which contributes to but doesn’t necessarily result in a sense of place.  To Tuan, our bodies in a particular location, bound to and subject to the limitations of physical presence, provide us our place.  While our minds, equipped with imagination and freed from such constraints, provide us with the boundless experience of space.

Another way to consider this is through the use of my basic definition: place = location + meaning. Here, location is the placeholder for all that is physically experienced, as well as that which is inherent to the identity of a particular landscape. It is therefore the realm of the physical senses. It exists as a critical component of place, as the equation suggests, but one that requires the addition of the observer and consciousness.

Based on that and seemingly in opposition to Tuan’s definitions, I would be inclined then to associate the term space with physical location and subject in some instances therefore to what he calls “sensory ties.” I’m not as comfortable suggesting the association of constraints or limitations with this physical component, but I understand his purpose in doing so, to support his contention of the corresponding limitlessness of consciousness.

A space in my view becomes the material context, a container if you will, into or onto which meaning is established, resulting in deeply felt connections. This space can be used to define the boundaries of a natural landscape, a cultural landscape or that of a more immediate scale representation such as a room. The latter suggests some interesting ideas about place within the context of architecture, something I’d like to take up in a future post.

So on the surface a reversal of terms, but ultimately not a contradiction of terms.  Like Tuan I am steering towards the same end state – a celebration of the experience of place and an acknowledgement of just how enriching those moments are to the human condition, and thus how important that perspective is to any treatment of geography.

What’s more, upon further reflection I think Yi-Fu Tuan’s ideas in this instance provide me with a legitimate way to begin to address what has been something of a nagging challenge of uncertainty. His notion of the mind body duality, though seemingly employing different definitions of place and space than my own, might offer a means of a more nuanced understanding of in situ and displaced place.

Place, in what I suppose is its most elemental form, can certainly be conjured while one is situated within a particular location.  Most I think would be comfortable accepting the idea that a sense of place can be felt while one is right there, experiencing all that a given location has to offer the mind and the senses.

But I’ve found too that a significant sense of place can arise when simply experiencing various media manifestations (photographs, soundscapes, paintings, video) for instance, that effectively capture and re-present a location.  That displaced sense of place might be similar and comparable to that experienced in situ, or it might represent a whole new level of awareness, perhaps influenced by the nature of the media employed.

I think this notion of removed place is interesting and worth celebrating, but the fact that it happens is not the challenge for me.  Rather, I’m struggling to put the two styles of place sense in their proper relational context.  I can’t decide for instance if in situ place, which just feels that way, is necessarily more genuine.  Or if the place sense from the exhibition of a removed location can even legitimately be compared on a meaningful level.

Thus far I’ve been happy to recognise that both these types of place sense exist and in fact in their differences only expand and enrich the potential of place generally.  But I still desire a more satisfying way to characterise them, particularly in regards to one another.  Arising from different experiential sources, why do they each emerge and how might they be properly contextualised to give them their separate and combined due?

Here is where the writing of the venerable professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison can be of assistance. Borrowing from Tuan, two agents (body and mind), in two contexts (in situ and displaced), generates four possible outcomes:

1. body and mind both in the location
2. body in the location, mind displaced
3. mind in the location, body displaced
4. mind and body both displaced.

A body in a physical location is easy enough to understand.  But the idea of a mind in a location requires a bit more explanation.  For the purposes of this discussion I would describe a mind in a location as one fully engaged with that location.

If the observer is in situ, then inputs like those from the physical senses certainly help to focus the mind in this way; if displaced, then things like memory or media representations can help engage consciousness.  The point is that the mind in this instance is fully there. It is flooded with a high level of awareness and as such knows little in the way of distraction.

So now to look at each of the four scenarios and how they relate to in situ and displaced sense of place.

Number four is easily discounted to start.  For if the observer is not in a location and the conscious mind has no engagement with that location, then no sense of place is possible. Or if it is argued that there could be an unconscious connection, there is still no observer awareness and so no sense of place. This might be characterised as the rest of the world, outside of each of us. It exists, we understand rationally that it exists, but at this point in time we have no legitimate connection to it.

Scenario two suggests Yi-Fu Tuan’s take on space and place.  For it is this common distinction between physical presence and consciousness found in humans that defines the mind body duality for him.  Interestingly (and by my interpretation of his writing anyway) he sees this as ripe with potential.  For it is our uniquely imaginative minds that free us from the bounds of physical locations and allow us to experience a more enlightened idea of space.

Again I absolutely understand and accept his thoughts on this, but acknowledge that it represents a different use of terminology and therefore gives rise to a somewhat different set of conclusions on place than my own.  By my reckoning, this arrangement cannot result in a fully realised sense of place and is therefore not the most enlightened outcome. It does however stand as a powerful scenario for understanding the role of inherent locational identity, a critical input for sense of place.

Scenario number three corresponds to my definition of displaced place.  It is here that various proxies for a meaningful experience or awareness stimulate the connections that are required for a true sense of place.  And as I’ve noted previously, the resultant place sense can be surprisingly visceral. And it can conjure a wholly new and different level of consciousness to that resulting from in situ experience (scenarios one and two).

That leaves scenario one.  And it is here I think that the idea of sense of place is most comfortably acceptable, nearly logical in fact.  If we are physically situated in a location, directly experiencing all that location has to offer in its visual aesthetics, sounds, smells, tactile sensations, and simultaneously our conscious minds are fully engaged, whether from those sensory inputs, other mental triggers like memories, or as is often the case a combination of both, then a genuine and deeply felt sense of place is, if not inevitable, at least possible.  And it is likely to be powerfully felt.

So Tuan’s ideas on mind body duality offer a worthwhile means of analysing in situ and displaced place, and that’s very useful to me.  The question remains, though, am I any closer as a result to clarifying their respective roles and significance?

I suppose that remains to be seen. It does demonstrate, however, that the two states of place sense, on the surface wholly disparate, can be considered together within the same analytical framework. And that feels to me like a step along the path.

 

Place through the lens

In a previous post I extolled the virtues of the highly personal, in situ engagement with a location as critical to a genuine experience of place.  In light of that, what follows may very well read as a contradiction.  Maybe it is.  Maybe it’s a new perspective that reflects a fundamental shift in my thinking.  Considering the challenges involved with capturing the ethereal nature of place, that would not be completely unexpected.

For the same reason though, contradiction seems an overly simplistic assessment.  It feels more like evolution.  And as things evolve and while in the process of settling, they may appear for a time to contradict themselves.  Suggesting then that locations must be directly experienced to generate the most visceral sense of place is not necessarily at odds with the notion that sense of place arising from the visual portrayal of a location in a photograph is likewise sincere and powerful.

The latter idea certainly bears further investigation.  A significant driver behind this blog afterall is a consideration of the potential role of photography within the broader idea of place.

For me photographs have long been an important and particularly potent conjurer of place.  They are in fact often a singularly critical catalyst supporting the emergence of a sense of place for locations from which I am physically removed.  These might be places never visited, or more often, places to which I had traveled some time in the past.  The images in these cases often supersede my own memories as a source of a strong place sense.

Therein lies a peculiar power of photography – the ability to stimulate a displaced sense of place.

More than that, photographs can add a whole new dimension to the experience of place, expanding its potential and opening it to novel applications where it might not otherwise have even been considered.

And it’s surprising to me how strong, on occasion, that photography-induced sense of place can be.  I suppose it’s not fair to directly compare it to an in situ experience, as it is something altogether different, but it can be compelling nonetheless.  My reaction to a photograph in this regard can be quite intuitional and highly emotional, striking something deep within that links me to the portrayed location.

This is all triggered of course by vision, and as such I think anyone would struggle to properly convey the result in words.  With photography it is the images themselves that determine levels of response and I think it best therefore for the purposes of any place discussion focused on imagery to keep words to a minimum.

What follows then in this blog and others to come, is a selection of my photographs that for me properly evoke the sense of place I experienced while in various locations.  As such they provide me a new level of meaning beyond that which I experienced while there, and perhaps just as importantly help shore up my memory against the erosional effects of time, allowing me to retain and keep that place sense long after I’ve left the location behind.

What’s even more amazing to me is that in some cases the photographs create in me a whole new sense of place.  This emerges I believe from a consideration of the location through a specific perspective – maybe with a particular focus on lighting or shadow or pattern, or the removal of ambient sounds and tactile experience and all of the other things that influence in situ sense of place.

So far from undermining the emotional engagement with locations experienced while situated within them, the captured image can in fact add new emotional contexts, all generated from vision alone.  The record of the eye, presented through the avenue of a camera lens and in its isolation, opens new doors into the space.

Displaced place via photography and in situ place are hardly mutually exclusive.  They are in fact complementary.  Taken together they have the potential to instill an even deeper, richer sense of place, striking at many more emotional chords than is possible with either individually.

Here then a few images of mine, taken on New Zealand’s Otago Peninsula, to illustrate the point.