英语论文网

二十世纪八十年代早期，杰克逊要求他的同伴们去探讨文化是如何运转操作的问题，同时科斯格罗夫则在论证着激进的文化地理学，这种学说试图理解具有象征性的产品以及他们如何构建空间。对于文化持续增长的关注，不仅仅聚焦在地理学上，也在社会科学、人文学科当中广泛存在。这种关注的增长是因为，人们对目前现存的概念性工具以及它们去帮助理解当下社会变化的复杂性跟波动性十分不满意。学术界对理解文化的重要性更加重视。二十世纪八十年代，“社会地理研究小组”更名为“社会与文化地理小组”，可以看做是人文地理学科的再概念化。文化转向突出关注这样一个问题：二十世纪八十年代末期，通过参与到更多的实体、过程和关系之中，多学科的关注度被大大提高。尽管存在着霸权主义文化和经济、政治以及社会殖民地化的担忧，几乎在人类地理学科无孔不入的文化入侵依然是一个“向这个世界提出有效的、紧要的问题的地方”，文化已经改变了地理学，使得学习更多东西成为可能，但也使无法监控的因素越来越多。

In the early 1980s, Jackson urged his peers to address questions of how culture operated, while Cosgrove similarly argued for a radical cultural geography that sought to understand symbolic productions and how they structured space (Scott 2004). This increased attention to the culture, not only exclusive to geography but widespread throughout social sciences and humanities, was linked to a broader dissatisfaction ‘with existing conceptual tools and their ability to help understand the complexity and volatility of contemporary social change’ (Gibson and Waitt 2009:414-415). The importance of understanding culture was recognized by academia as the Social Geography Study Group (SGSG) (of the Institute of British Geographers) was renamed as ‘Social and Cultural Geography Study Group’ (SCGSG) in the 1980s, and can be seen as a reconceptualization of human geography. This ‘cultural turn’ highlighted how ‘the focus of disciplinary attention has been considerably enlarged since around the late 1980s, by attending to a much greater array of entitites, processes and relations that arguably warrant the designation of ‘cultural’ than had occurred previously’ (Philo 2009:442). While there were fears about the imperialist effects of culture and its ‘colonization’ of the economic, political and social, this infiltration of the ‘cultural’ into almost all pores of the human geography discipline is rather a “place from which to ask valid and urgent questions of the world…The cultural has modified the geographical, making it possible to study more ‘things’, but also to bring more and more things under scrutiny…” (Anderson et. al. 2003: xix), and is what Philo (2009:445) meant by a ‘deeply and broadly enculturated’ human geography, which broke disciplinary boundaries to overlap with other divisions of social sciences and humanities. Despite doubts and criticisms (Barnett 2004), Scott (2004) suggested that the value of current works lie in how cultural geography continues to engage with other areas of scholarship, within and outside geography.

Intrinsic in this ‘new’ cultural geography was the criticism of structures and the Marxist school of thought as being essentialist, reductionist and class based. This however does not mean the outright rejection of the value of structures but rather that assumptions that the economy formed the basics of all social forms and oppression were problematic and inadequate in explaining other forms of oppression like racism and sexism. In addition, the dependence on structures for explaining social change was also increasingly problematic in light of the rapidly changing world. There was thus a need to move beyond the problematic superorganic idea of culture and systems/structures (Duncan 1980) to better understand the way ‘in本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。