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:
- body and mind both in the location
- body in the location, mind displaced
- mind in the location, body displaced
- 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 