In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

NOTES 235 CHAPTER 1 1. Wright 1947, 15. The epigraph is from Wright’s 1946 Presidential Address to the Association of American Geographers, in which he called upon his colleagues to explore “geographical truths and beliefs as these Wnd and have found literary and artistic expression” (15). Wright’s address has encouraged several scholars to think “humanistically” about geography in its presumption that “the uniqueness and speciWcity of a place flows from the experiences that individuals and groups associate with it” (Young 2001, 681). As Terence Young observes, humanistic geographers are “sensitive to the role of the subject in the creation and meaning of symbols and the normative signiWcance of place” (Ibid., 681). In turn, this line of thought has been informed by Heidegger’s concept of “dwelling,” and Bachelard’s “poetics of space” (Casey 1997). My own thoughts on place-making have been informed by this tradition of scholarship. 2. See, e.g., Ashe 1992, 8–13; Cohen 1969, 26–42; Cornell 1978, 212–16; Kolosimo 1973, 53–90; Stemman 1976, 64–95; Wellard 1975, 57–70. For works in other European languages that feature Lemuria, see, e.g., Kondratov 1967; Lugo 1978; Vincent 1969. 3. Quoted in Williams 1991, 12. 4. See, e.g., de Camp 1970; de Camp and Ley 1970; Ellis 1998; Feder 1990; Gardner 1957; Godwin 1972. 5. Williams 1991, 7. 6. See, e.g., Stiebing 1984; Vitaliano 1973; Wauchope 1962; Williams 1991. 7. Wauchope 1962, 135. 8. Ibid., 134. 9. Ibid. 10. Foucault 1980, 81–82. 11. Quoted in Bann 1989, 246. 12. Basso 1996, 6. The scholarship on the relationship between “space” and “place” is vast. In the humanist geography tradition, which has been much more cen- trally concerned with place, “‘space’ is more abstract than ‘place.’ What begins as undifferentiated space becomes place as we get to know it better and endow it with value. . . . Place is a special kind of object. It is a concretion of value . . . an object in which one can dwell. . . . When space feels thoroughly familiar to us, it has become place” (Tuan 1977, 6, 12, 73). For Edward Relph, place is “constructed in our memories and affections, time deepened and memory-qualiWed, a here from which to discover the world, a there to which we can return” (quoted in Read 1996, 111). In Edward Casey’s phenomenological understanding, space is “the encompassing volumetric void in which things (including human beings) are positioned” and place is “the immediate environment of my lived body—an arena of action that is at once physical and historical, social and cultural” (Casey 2001, 683). 13. Basso 1996, 5. 14. Ibid. See also Casey’s discussion of “place memory” in Casey 1987a, 181– 215. 15. Basso 1996, 7. 16. Ibid., 32. 17. I borrow the term “conflicted intimacy” from Richard Terdiman, who also writes that “the discourses of a society are structured in a shifting, multiform network of linked assertions and subversions, of normalized and heterodox speech. The linkage is essential, and its character is complex. . . . Counter-discourses are always interlocked with the domination they contest” (Terdiman 1985, 16). 18. The scholarly literature on lost places is limited. Peter Bishop’s analysis of Tibet as a “site of contending fantasies” for European travelers is very suggestive in its exploration of the Himalayan kingdom as “a place of loss, of self-discovery, of transcendence, of ennui” (Bishop 1989, 7–8). Peter Read examines the many kinds of lost—and “wrecked” and “dead”—places in Australia that have become the subject of memorializing (Read 1996). See also John Chavez’s historical study of the meaning and memory of Azatlan as a “lost homeland” to Mexican Americans (Chavez 1984). 19. Carter 1988, xxii. Although he does not deploy the notion of spatial history, Peter Bishop makes much the same observation when he writes that “places are produced by a dialogue between cultural fantasy-making and geographical landscape” (Bishop 1989, 9). 20. Carter 1988, 351. Carter’s invitation to do spatial history anticipates postmodern geographer Edward Soja’s complaint that “for at least the past century, time and history have occupied a privileged position in the practical and theoretical consciousness of Western Marxism and critical social science. Understanding how history is made has been the primary source of emancipatory insight and practical political consciousness. Today, however, it may be space, rather than time, that hides consequences from us, the making of geography more than the making of history that provides the most revealing tactical and theoretical world...

pdf

Additional Information

ISBN
9780520931855
Related ISBN
9780520240322
MARC Record
OCLC
56733653
Pages
351
Launched on MUSE
2014-01-01
Language
English
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.