中国文化地理中的“地方”(英文版)

Chapter 1 Introduction Zhu Hong (Guangzhou University) 1.1 The study of “place” in new cultural geographies Weaving the notion of “culture” in cultural studies with the concept of “space” in spatial studies， scholars usually regard cultural geographies as a subfield of human geography， which focuses on the spatiality and spatial combination of human cultures. In the extant knowledge， cultural geographies can primarily be categorized into two types of research paradigms: traditional cultural geographies and new cultural geographies. They are not a pair of antithetical and conflicting frameworks in this subfield， but in contrast， they just have different concerns. Traditional cultural geographies treats the “culture-space relations” as a form of “human-land relations”， exploring how human cultures are spatialized， how and to what extent human cultures impact the change of ecological environment， how human cultures with spatial characteristics are inherited， and the like. For a long time， traditional cultural geographies has been generalized into five themes: cultural landscape study (to summarize and describe the spatial characteristics of a certain cultural phenomenon)， cultural diffusion study [to study how one form or more forms of human culture(s) is (are) spreading from one space to the others]， cultural area study (to map people with common cultural attributes)， cultural source study (to discuss the geographical origins of a certain cultural phenomenon)， and the study of cultural ecology (to explore the cultural adaptation of natural environment). It undoubtedly provides an important perspective to observe the “human-land relations” in geography studies. However， traditional cultural geographies also has limitations. For example， The “Place” in Chinese Cultural Geographies the space and the culture in this framework are always handled as two types of concretionary and stock-still concepts， rather than dynamic ones， which may limit our understanding of “human culture” and “land” in geography studies. Since around the later 2000s， a number of peers and colleagues have attempted to break such limitations in cultural geographies. Some of them have contributed their ideas to this book， while others have not. One of the most commonly-shared ideas in their works is to treat human culture and space in the discussion of “human-land relations” as two dynamic notions. Particularly， we have tried to focus on the concept of “place” as an alternative notion for “space” in cultural geographies， which gives the element of “land” more changes and vigor. In spite of the contribution of the above geographers to the development of new cultural geographies， this paradigm seems to have not well developed within Chinese geographical studies yet. In this regard， this book aims to systematically introduce how the notion “place” is investigated in new cultural geographies， in order to show a new map for cultural geographies. Before the commencement of introducing empirical case studies， I will give a short introduction of what new cultural geographies is by quoting some Western geographers’ understandings. The new cultural geographies， in comparison with the traditional cultural geographies， stresses that cultural landscapes and places are more than just stock-still material artifacts or containers awaiting people to discover. This field of study， which is marked by Denis Cosgrove’s (1983) and Peter Jackson’s (1989)① ideas of cultural geographies， calls for paying more attention to the “areas of social life that have rarely been treated by geographers”. In so doing， it has gradually been becoming the focus point to examine the geography of social life， which is proposed as a “rapprochement” with social science. In general， the themes of new cultural geographies can be generalized into the following several aspects. The first is to “read” the cultural landscapes and cultural spatiality by way of interpreting their symbolic aspects， in particular through the subjectivity， discourse， languages， music and other cultural practice in people’s everyday life. The discussions of home-making discourse (see the research by Yin Duo et al. on the negotiations of the meaning of home through the case study of Ordos’s spatial discourse of “Ghost City” in Chapter 3)， cultural practice (see the research by Ma Ling et al. on the reimagination of China’s cultural history and traditions through the practice of art and creation in Chapter 4)， and the representations of city image in advertisements (see the research by Zhu Hong et al. on the metro station advertisements in Guangzhou in Chapter 7) in this book can be attributed to this aspect. The second is to understand the place in a dynamic and changing way. That is， the geographical space that cultural geographies is studying is not just a stationary container awaiting social action， but on the contrary is exactly the social action that is changing definitions and