Furthermore, the concept of discourse underlines the plurality of cultures owing to different visions from one person to another. Peter Jackson explains that there are as many ways of seeing the world as there are eyes to see it. But this difference of perception sometimes ends in conflicts because of antagonistic ‘readings’. Social interactions turn into struggles for meaning (‘cultures war’), particularly in geopolitical discourse as discussed later.
- Discourse and spatiality of culture
Nevertheless, the relevancy of discourse in the formation of culture is questioned if we consider its material aspect and its links with space: indeed, culture is not only a set of beliefs, images and representations. What about its physical manifestations upon space? Culture shapes space (types of houses, landscapes…). On the other hand, the spatiality of culture is not clearly explained by the notion of discourse. Indeed, cultural phenomena have ‘a spatial constitution’ and a territorial expression. Therefore cultural and spatial are mutually constitutive and they cannot exist without each other: not only is culture embedded in a certain space but space is also shaped by culture.
However, discourse may be a medium in the production of this socio-spatial culture. According to Lilley the ‘act of mapping and drawing is a way of producing landscape’. It means that landscape only exists through its visualisation. Consequently, even materiality and spatiality of culture are discursive: they exist through a social filter. To sum up, culture and space are linked to each other since they are both a result of social practices (discourse).
Ideology and discourse, the power upon space and culture
- Ideologies of power
Power and ideology are strongly bound: a discourse becomes ideological when it is produced by a powerful social class. Raymond Williams notes that ‘ideology promotes certain meanings in preference to others according to the interests of a dominant group’. Indeed politics aim at increasing or preserving their power by imposing a certain vision of the world. The case of Johnston in Pennsylvania developed by Mitchell is relevant as the heroic industrialisation past was privileged rather than the strikes and ‘de-industrialisation’ history because the elite wanted to build an attractive image for investors.
Moreover, the concept of ideology explains how social interactions may be based on the domination of a class upon a subordinate one. Indeed, Raymond Williams’s definition of ideology also points out the fact that dominant groups’ ideas are imposed at the expense of lower groups. Culture may come from the top instead of emerging from the bottom and ideology is then different from spontaneous discourse.
-
Ideology as an ‘idea of culture’
Ideology is a particular discourse of and for power based on a built, imposed and controlled meaning. So ideology consists in an ‘instrumentalisation’ of culture through discourse: culture is either created ex-nihilo or deviated. For instance cinema is sometimes used by politicians for propaganda such as the German movie ‘Triumph of the Will’ produced in the 1930s for the Nazi Party. Moreover, ideology may be a ‘naturalisation’ of culture. In short, ideology exercises its power on people’s vision by producing a biased vision of culture.
So an ideology privileges the ‘idea of culture’ rather than one of cultures and erases the sense of difference. From this it follows that: ideological discourses which write and read culture to give it a singular meaning are an exercise of power. There is just one way to ‘read’ the world such as the “visual ideology” of landscape in Renaissance Italy (Mitchell) or the American representation of 09/11: it may be considered as an ideology owing to the single viewpoint (‘we have been attacked’) presented in discourse for remembering.
- Discourse and territory, a power upon and for space
In geopolitical discourse, space is linked with a singular culture (national identity) and refers to the ideology of territory. For instance Jouni Häkli notes that the ‘dominant tendency is to take a state-territorial definition of society for granted’ and points out the role of state-territorial boundaries in structuring the production of knowledge of a society. So space considered as the place of a Nation may be a bone of contention. Many geopolitical conflicts arise because of the desire for a space of national identity marked off by frontiers. It leads to the issue of nationalism which is at the junction between culture (ideological representations like the national landscape), geopolitical power and a controlled space (the place of identity).
Geopolitical discourse may create an exclusive space. The rejection of ‘other’ developed by Crang is a key concern for the comprehension of racism which is both a territorial and a social ideology. The case of Apartheid in South Africa is a very obvious manifestation of racist ideology (figure 1) and is a ‘geographical project’: to one space should correspond one ‘race’ and one culture. To sum up, racist ideology rejects difference through space since it asserts a power of an assumed ‘race’. Yet, it is only one aspect of the balance between culture, space and power… Indeed, meaning and definitions may be contested.
Figure 1
New spaces, new cultures, new powers? Other ideologies and discourse?
-
Economic ideology and the end of Nation States
What about the usefulness concerning the ideas of ideology and discourse with the emergence of new spaces? Are they still relevant in the understanding of the link between space, culture and power if political power has ceased to impose a culture and to rule over a particular space? The emergence of new technologies and the resulting space of globalisation have broken the Frontier logic and led to ‘transnational spaces’ : therefore, there is a new geography with the shift from Nation-States and the development of networks (Internet). The ‘de-territorialisation’ described by Mitchell has abolished closed spaces of a specific identity.
Nevertheless new powers, more economically-oriented (NGOs) than previous politic ones, have appeared. These are not concentrated in one hand but scattered in a global space. The modern link between culture and space exists in correlation with new ideologies and new discourse which have moved towards a consumer culture.
-
Resistance to power, the shrinking of ideology?
If we think of the contestation of a hegemonic power by other counter powers, the idea of a culture built by a dominant power to assert its power upon space is called into question. Last but not least, it implies that ideology is an obsolete explanation of the link between space, culture and power: it is not a one-way relationship, with power superior to culture and space. The existence of a counter power must be taken into account in the cultural process. Don Mitchell suggests a ‘geography of cultural resistance’. Then culture is the result of struggles between grassroots cultures and an elitist culture.
Consequently, this process of resistance produces another meaning that is to say another culture. In fact, culture is still produced by discourses, but they are not ideological ones; they are everyday life practices as depicted in part one.
-
Culture, a double process
Culture is both a product and a process; it is shaped by people, but it also shapes people’s thoughts. In this case, are ideology and discourse useful to underline this aspect of the cultural process? Indeed, both ideology and discourse are a social product: they are the results of human actions and thoughts. Consequently, ideology and discourse only emphasize one side of the cultural process: the shaping of culture by people. But are there cultural forces that would shape people? For example, cultural landscape is an agent of social reproduction and structures people’s lives. It gives them some rules for life.
We have described through this essay ideology as a negative production of power but could it not be a positive concept (freedom)? In theory, we cannot judge the value of an ideology as it is a subjective view… but in practice do we assert our power on the reader through written discourse? Does the writer produce ideology?
CONCLUSIONS
To conclude, culture, space and power are linked by the negative idea of conflict. Ideology is clearly bound with the exercise of power and it helps us to understand space as a bone of contention. Nevertheless it is not very significant in understanding the spatiality of culture although the notion of discourse explains how culture is linked with space. Discourse seems to interact with and adapt to cultural evolution contrary to static ideologies built without any consideration of the surrounding world. Wars over ideological beliefs still exist but they become wars against the so-called -ISM (islamism, terrorism). So new forms of ideology and discourse rather than politico-nationalist ones have emerged and explain the contemporary link between space, culture and power.
Rather than ideology and discourse, geography may be a way to explain these changing relations. ‘Instrumentalised’ in the 17th century to justify and represent the western space of colonisation, it has become a neutral and universal science which could be beyond these cultural clashes…
2198 words
10th of December, 2002
REFERENCES
- CARTER Erika, DONALD James, SQUIRES Judith, Space and Place 1999, Theories of Identity and Location, Lawrence & Wishart, London
-
CRANG Michel 1998, Cultural Geography, London, Routledge
-
HAKLI Jouni 2001, ‘In The Territory of Knowledge : State-centred Discourses and the Construction of Society’, in Progress in Human Geography 25-3, pp 403-422
-
JACKSON Peter 1989, Maps of Meaning, London, Routledge
-
MITCHELL Donald 2000, Cultural Geography, a Critical Introduction, London, Blackwell
-
MITCHELL Donald 2002, ‘Cultural Landscapes: the Dialectical Landscape – Recent Landscape Research in Human Geography’, in Progress in Human Geography 26-3, pp 381-389
- MOSTROM Jerker 2000, ‘The Geography of Power – Spatial Changes of Power Structures in Värmland during the Iron Age and Middle Ages’, University of Stockholm
-
PEET Richard 2002, ‘Ideology, Discourse and the Geography of Hegemony: from Socialist to Neoliberal Development in Post apartheid South Africa’, in Antipode, 34-1
-
PHILLIPS Richard 2000, ‘Politics of Reading: Cultural politics of homelessness’, in Antipode, 32-4, pp 429-462
-
SASSEN Sakia, A New Geography of Power?, University of Chicago
-
WOLF Jennifer and DEAR Michael 1989, The Power of Geography, How Territory Shapes Social Life, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Crang M. 1998, Cultural Geography: 189-190
Mitchell D. 2002: 381-389
Mitchell D. 2000: 98, ‘the political landscape’
Jackson P. 1989, chapter 8
Raymond Williams, quoted in Peter Jackson, chapter 3
In Cultural Geography, a Critical Introduction 2000, Don Mitchell deals with the mechanisms of Johnston’s representation, devasted by flood in 1889
In Cultural Geography, a Critical Introduction 2000, Don Mitchell asserts that ‘the idea of culture’ is much more important than culture itself
Naturalisation justifies the control of a space or culture with natural ‘reasons’ (determinism and idea of ‘natural boundaries’ whereas there are always cultural and decided by geopolitics).
Mitchell D. 2000: 115 ‘ The landscape idea : representing ideology’. Realism in painting was a means to represent the ‘true way of seeing the world’
In Cultural Geography 1998: 57, M. Crang deals with the idea of ‘self and other’: the other is rejected as an object of fear
Mitchell D. 2000, chapter 9: 252-253 , it is a case of socio-spatial segregation which uses space to maintain limits between races
.
Sassen S., ‘A New Geography of Power?’, University of Chicago
Mitchell D. 2000, chapter 10: 273
Mitchell D. 2000, chapter 6