The Social Construction of Landscapes PDF

Landscape Research ISSN: 0142-6397 (Print) 1469-9710 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/clar20 The Social Construction of Landscapes: Two Theoretical Lenses and Their Empirical Applications Ludger Gailing & Markus Leibenath To cite this article: Ludger Gailing & Markus Leibenath (2015) The Social Construction of Landscapes: Two Theoretical Lenses and Their Empirical Applications, Landscape Research, 40:2, 123-138, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2013.775233 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.775233 Published online: 23 Jul 2013. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1918 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 22 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=clar20 Landscape Research, 2015 Vol. 40, No. 2, 123–138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.775233 The Social Construction of Landscapes: Two Theoretical Lenses and Their Empirical Applications LUDGER GAILING* & MARKUS LEIBENATH** * ** Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning (IRS), Germany Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Germany ABSTRACT There is growing interest amongst landscape researchers on social constructivist Form of concept perspectives on landscapes. This paper discusses two ways of conceptualising the social a construction of landscapes: historical institutionalism and post-structuralist discourse theory. The aim is to explore the opportunities that both approaches offer, and to assess their strengths and limitations. Drawing on two local case studies from Germany, we illuminate the ontologies of landscape implied by the two theoretical lenses, how they conceive of the social construction of landscapes, and ﬁnally the ways in which they can inform political processes. Both approaches apply an anti-essentialist agenda, though in different ways. Whereas in historical institutionalism materiality is treated as separated from the social sphere, in post-structuralist discourse theory material objects, practices, subjects and linguistic utterances are all part of relational systems of meaning called discourse. Both approaches can contribute to a more democratic and pluralistic practice of landscape planning and policy-making. KEY WORDS: Historical institutionalism, post-structuralist discourse theory, materiality, anti- essentialism, landscape policy 1. Introduction Principle Over the past two decades it has been a basic, generally accepted tenet in human geography that landscapes are socially constructed. One of the ﬁrst to describe landscapes as constructs was Cosgrove (1988, p. 13), who wrote: “Landscape is not merely the world we see, it is a construction, a composition of that world.” Others followed suit. Jones (1991, p. 234) speaks to “landscape as a cultural and social construction”; Rose (2002, p. 457) regards landscapes as “stable constructed environment[s]”. While some stress the materiality of these constructions, such as Terkenli (2001, p. 198), who states that “landscapes [...] represent material constructions which are reﬂective of the basic organization of society and economy” (in Correspondence Address: Ludger Gailing, Leibniz Institute for Regional Development and Structural Planning (IRS), Flakenstr. 28–31, Erkner 15537, Germany. Email: [email protected] ! 2013 Landscape Research Group Ltd 124 L. Gailing & M. Leibenath the same vein: Cosgrove, 2004, p. 62), others equate landscapes—as social constructs—with “symbols and meanings” (Greider & Garkovich, 1994, p. 2). It is obvious that the construction of landscapes can be viewed in a number of ways: as a physical shaping of nature by humans or as a social process in which meanings are attached to landscapes or in which landscapes themselves turn into symbols. This view has crystallised in the European Landscape Convention which famously deﬁnes ‘landscape’ as “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the JE action and interaction of natural and/or human factors” (CoE, 2000, article 1 a). The spirit of the European Landscape Convention encourages not only practitioners but also researchers to adopt a constructivist attitude towards landscapes. Thus, research should focus on the different ways landscapes are constructed. There exists a plenitude of potential theoretical lenses on these issues. In this article we want to discuss the social construction of landscapes with explicit reference to theoretical concepts. Following up the work of constructivist scholars concerned with landscapes such as Greider and Garkovich (1994) and Jones (1991), we have selected two theoretical frameworks: historical institutionalism and post-structuralist discourse theory. There are pragmatic reasons for this choice: both authors have investigated the social construction of landscapes, though in different theoretical frameworks and with regard to different cases. The ﬁrst approach, historical institutionalism, is widely employed in political and social sciences. Historical institutionalists stress the importance of institutions, understood as formal and informal rules and norms that have an impact upon individual or collective agency, and the historic processes through which institutions evolve (Hall & Taylor, 1996). Although there are few studies employing political science approaches in the ﬁeld of the social construction of landscapes (see Görg, 2007), scholars such as Paasi (2008) have introduced institutional thinking in constructivist debates about landscapes. Furthermore, theoretical debates around “political landscapes” (Jones, 2006, p. 3) and the multitude of actors and institutions concerned in landscape policy (see Donadieu & Périgord, 2007, p. 121) provide insights for the application of institutionalist approaches in constructivist research on the social constructions of landscapes. The second approach, post-structuralist discourse theory, forms—implicitly or explicitly—the conceptual basis of research by many constructivist scholars. They work with the assumption that because landscapes are socially constructed, they represent the outcome of power-laden political processes. Hence this strand of constructivist landscape research often deals with issues of justice and involves “a critique of power relations” (Henderson, 2003, p. 338). Winchester et al. underline that powerful social groups seek to effect “their ideologies in the production and use of landscapes, as well as dominant deﬁnitions of their meanings” (2003, p. 67). Some have even argued that landscapes can be constructed in such a way as to mask the unbalanced relations of power upon which they are based, thus functioning as a kind of “veil” (Wylie, 2007, p. 69). The aim of this paper is to explore the opportunities that historical institutionalism and post-structuralist discourse theory offer constructivist landscape researchers. To this end we brieﬂy introduce both approaches and compare them regarding their epistemological stances and the related key analytical terms. Furthermore, we illuminate the ontologies of landscape implied by the two approaches, how they conceive of the social construction of landscapes, and ﬁnally the ways in which both approaches can inform political processes. The Social Construction of Landscapes 125 The comparison is underpinned by ﬁndings from two case studies. The ﬁrst looks at the role of formal and informal institutions in local governance processes in the German region Spreewald through which a reiﬁed landscape emerged as a space for collective action. The second focuses on the discursive construction of landscapes in the course of a wind energy controversy in the small German town of Wolfhagen. 2. Historical Institutionalism and Post-Structuralist Discourse Theory at a Glance Historical institutionalism and discourse theory address different, though partly overlapping, aspects of human societies. Historical institutionalists analyse a variety of highly resilient social structures, whereas post-structuralist discourse theorists place emphasis on the production and stabilisation of systems of meaning through political and social practices. Let us begin with historical institutionalism. An institutionalism is a research approach that operates on the assumption that the analysis of social rules and regulations is vital for the understanding of social agency. According to institutional theory, human agency is inﬂuenced by a wide range of social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience. Institutions are composed of cognitive, normative and regulative elements that provide stability and meaning in social life (see Scott, 2001). They are the rules of the game in a society or the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction (North, 1990). This understanding of institutions differs from the everyday meaning of the term as well as from other scientiﬁc approaches which often confuse institutions and organisations (Breit & Troja, 2003). Institutional research differentiates between formal and informal institutions. Formal institutions are sets of rules and regulations or administrative structures articulated in constitutive documents (e.g. laws or statutes). Informal institutions are traditions, customs, shared values, perspectives and worldviews about the nature of things, interrelated practices and routines, shared beliefs or perceptions of Good and Bad (see March & Olsen, 1995). Especially since the beginning of the 1990s there has been a growing interest in social and political sciences in the relevance of institutions. In contrast to the earlier approaches of institutionalist and structuralist research, this so-called “new institutionalism” reﬂects the dialectic of structure and agency (see Giddens, 1984). Hasse and Krücken (1999, p. 10) characterise the new institutionalism as recognising that formal rules are no longer the only regulating factor. In many areas of society, traditions, ideals and core beliefs are at least as important as laws or other formal institutions. By contrast, Talcott Parsons, a prominent representative of “old institutionalism”, holds a structural functionalist understanding of institutions, focusing on formal rules and norms that determine the agency of individuals and collective actors. New institutionalism denies a deterministic and causalistic character of institutions (Gualini, 2001, p. 200). Seen this way, institutions do not simply provide orientation for actors; they are, in turn, themselves subject to (re-)shaping by actors (see Scharpf, 1997). This is the case with formal institutions that can be changed as a result of public governance, but also for informal institutions, which are often highly resilient. Often these cognitive or behavioural institutions are only susceptible to long-term processes of societal change, for example, shifts in symbolical representations (see Berger & Luckmann, 1987). Enhancements such as the consideration of the dialectic of structure 126 L. Gailing & M. Leibenath and agency as well as the attention paid to the fundamental role of informal institutions make it easier to connect institutionalist theory with constructivist thinking. In the reality of social sciences, different institutionalisms compete with one another because they originate within different worldviews and disciplinary backgrounds. Classiﬁcations of the alternative concepts distinguish an economical “rational choice institutionalism” from “sociological institutionalisms”. The so-called “historical institutionalism” is often presented as a sort of realistic compromise between them (see Hall & Taylor, 1996; Schulze, 1997; Waarden, 2003). Hall and Taylor (1996, p. 8) sketch historical institutionalism as follows: What do institutions do? From this perspective, institutions provide moral or cognitive templates for interpretation and action. The individual is seen as an entity deeply imbricated in a world of institutions, composed of symbols, scripts and routines, which provide the ﬁlters for interpretation, of both the situation and oneself, out of which a course of action is constructed. Ahistorical perspectives are rejected in favour of an approach that interprets decisions of individual and collective actors as path-dependent and rooted in a historically developed framework of institutions. An important operationalisation of historical institutionalism is the theoretical concept of path dependency (see Sørensen & Torﬁng, 2008, p. 32). The core proposition of this approach, originally applied in economic research (see Arthur, 1994; David, 1985), is that path dependencies arise during unintended processes of development which result from prior decisions. The path chosen is seen to be stabilised through positive feedback, even if this is largely unintentional. As a result of the dependencies which emerge from these increasing returns, considerable effort is required to depart from this ‘locked’ development path. The application of the path development concept in organisational theory (e.g. Schreyögg et al., 2003), political science (e.g. Pierson, 2000) and agricultural economy (e.g. Theuvsen, 2004), has led to a greater appreciation of the inﬂuence of actors. Consequently, path dependent developments are not absolutely ﬁxed but present limited scopes for action. In contrast to historical institutionalism, post-structuralist discourse theory has its origins in French philosophical thinking of the 1960s. Post-structuralism is not a clear- cut framework but rather a broad current that encompasses a number of ‘schools’. Although the term ‘discourse’ is prominent in many of these, discourse theory actually represents a distinct approach within post-structuralism. It has been developed chieﬂy by Laclau and Mouffe (1985), adopting the ideas of post-structuralist thinkers such as Lacan, Foucault and Derrida and integrating them with the concepts of linguistic philosophers such as Wittgenstein and of Marxist political philosophers such as Gramsci. We will concentrate on three key elements of post-structuralist discourse theory. The ﬁrst is a preoccupation with language and, in a broader sense, with systems of meaning. Discourse theorists neither deny the existence of a reality beyond language nor the possibility of experiencing it directly, for example, through the bodily sensation of falling raindrops. They insist, however, that something only becomes a part of social reality when codiﬁed in language or in other signifying relations (see Belsey, 2002, p. 5; Foucault, 1981 , p. 74; Laclau, 1990, p. 100). The Social Construction of Landscapes 127 Second, proponents of post-structuralist discourse theory adopt the structuralists’ claim that meaning is always relational and rooted in difference: the meaning of a signiﬁer such as ‘tree’ can only be grasped by articulating differences to other signiﬁers such as ‘leaf’, ‘branch’, ‘trunk’, ‘root’ and so on. However, and this is an important caveat, they reject the idea of ﬁxed meanings. For them, signiﬁers such as ‘tree’ or ‘landscape’ do not have any true or essential meaning. Instead, they can carry an inﬁnite number of different meanings, at least potentially. This anti-essentialist stance has also been termed anti- or post-foundationalist, because there are no basic concepts or terms such as ‘society’, ‘subject’, ‘institution’ or ‘space’ from which social systems or political decisions could be derived (see Derrida, 1986 , pp. 42 and 66 f.; Laclau, 1993, pp. 431 f.; Stäheli, 2000, pp. 8 f. and 19 f.; Thomassen, 2005, pp. 109 f.). Therefore it has been said that post-structuralists work with an “empty ontology” (Andersen, 2003, p. XII). Third, they conceptualise discourses not merely as linguistic structures which are regularly reproduced, but as wider cultural or social systems in which the individual is situated. Laclau and Mouffe conceive of discourses as attempts to arrest the ﬂow of differences, that is, to limit the potentially inﬁnite net of relations between discursive elements, and to establish structured totalities in the sense of closed systems of meaning (see Laclau, 1993, p. 435; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985, 111 f.). Seen this way, political disputes are clashes of competing discourses. It is important to stress that in poststructuralist discourse theory discourses are understood neither as discussions or conversations nor as opinions. To talk of opinions is to imply discussing someone’s thoughts and beliefs, which may well be subject matter for psychologists. Discourse theorists, by contrast, deal with articulations, that is, relations between words, practices, objects and subjects, but not with the underlying intentions or opinions. Furthermore, an opinion can be individual and idiosyncratic, whereas a discourse—at least in discourse theory—is always something supra-individual, structural. From this point of view, subjects (including their identities, values, opinions, etc.) are primarily shaped by discourses, not vice versa. Discourses rely on certain elements (signiﬁers, objects, etc.) that are related to very many other elements and hence function as nodal points or centres of a discourse. Yet the more a nodal point is related to other elements, the more it is emptied of any speciﬁc meaning. Therefore the identity of a discourse or structure depends as much on its centre as on that which is excluded from the discourse and which is articulated as being opposed to the centre. To produce a discourse thus requires articulating a frontier between inside and outside. And that which is articulated as belonging to the outside is constitutive of the identity of the inside. However, discourses are contingent social constructs which can never be fully stabilised (see Derrida, 1972, pp. 247 ff.; Torﬁng, 1999, p. 124). To compare historical institutionalism and post-structuralist discourse theory, we will use three categories important for the social construction of landscapes: dynamics and change; power; and the relationship between structure and agency. Dynamics and change: discourse theorists regard discourses as temporary, partial ﬁxations of differences which are always precarious, fragile and subject to change. In order to persist, a discursive structure must be re-articulated and re-produced. However, any discourse evolves and changes over time with each articulation. 128 L. Gailing & M. Leibenath Because these modiﬁcations only occur gradually and are difﬁcult to establish intentionally, a strong structuring function is attributed to discourses (Torﬁng, 2005, p. 13). But there can also be “situations of dislocation or disorder when structures no longer function to confer identity” and “when subjects construct and identify with new discourses” (Howarth, 2000, p. 121). Similarly, historical institutionalism views institutions as highly resilient (Scott, 2001, p. 48): “An institution is a relatively enduring collection of rules and organised practices, embedded in structures of meaning and resources that are relatively invariant in the face of turnover of individuals and relatively resilient to the idiosyncratic preferences and expectations of individuals and changing external circumstances” (March & Olsen, 2006, p. 3). Yet processes of de- and re-institutionalisation are possible and normal, as indicated in the literature on path dependency. To sum up, while both discourses and institutions are conceived to be structural in character, they are also contingent, dynamic constructs. Power: Hall and Taylor (1996, p. 7) have pointed out that historical institutionalists emphasise the asymmetries of power associated with the operation and development of institutions. In comparison with the other institutionalisms, power plays a prominent role in studies by historical institutionalists. At the same time, it should be emphasised that institutional theory suffers from a lack of conceptual approaches to analyse power relations (Göhler et al., 2009, p. 12). By contrast, power is a central analytical category in many post-structuralist inquiries. From a discourse-theoretical point of view, all forms of knowledge and categorisation are the product of power struggles. Such power play leads to the establishment of discursive structures and serves to maintain them over time. Unlike social theorists who elaborate post-political, communitarian visions of the social, many post-structuralist thinkers assume antagonisms to be inherent in all social relations, “antagonisms which can take many forms and which can never be absolutely eradicated” (Mouffe, 2005, p. 126). Structure and agency: this relationship is fundamental to both theoretical approaches. Although agency is not rejected entirely in post-structuralist theories, structures such as discourses are generally considered just as important if not more important than agency. By contrast, new institutionalists stress the observation that there is no institution without agency. Both discourse theory and historical institutionalism abandon the classical modern notion of an autonomous subject, either in favour of a concept of discursively constituted subjectivity or in favour of a duality of historically rooted institutions and (predominantly) collective agency. The subject can only conceive of itself within the limits of discursive constructions of subjectivity available in a given historic context or within an institutional framework, respectively. Both approaches underscore the relation of individuals to existing role models, standards and norms. They reject deterministic views on the relation between structure and agency: neither discourses nor institutions determine agency. Now that we have introduced and compared historical institutionalism and post- structuralist discourse theory in general terms, we want to present two case studies to illustrate how these theoretical frameworks can be applied to landscape research. The Social Construction of Landscapes 129 3. Landscape as an Institutional Arena: The Construction of Landscape from an Institutionalist Point of View What does it mean to look at the social construction of landscapes from a historical institutionalist point of view? Institutional theory assumes that all spatialities can be regarded as institutional structures that inscribe themselves in and can be altered by human agency. It is not just the material results of human agency as such that are attributed an important role, but also the social processes of the development or modiﬁcation of speciﬁc social and physical conditions denominated as regional, spatial or ecological (Healey, 1997; Kraemer, 2008; Paasi, 1986). In this point institutional theory could make a valuable contribution to research on the social construction of landscapes. The concept of path dependency was derived from studies on technological development, and thus material aspects are seen to play a decisive role. The path dependencies of landscapes can arise from large investments in infrastructure or other extensive projects, or indeed from small interventions. These have a considerable impact on the material aspects of a socially constructed landscape and are associated with an institutional regime with its formal and informal institutions. Examples of such material aspects of landscapes characterised by strong path dependencies can be mining, drainage or irrigation, or elements important for a strong touristic image of traditional cultural landscapes. With the abandonment of a development path, persistent material elements without use or function frequently become apparent. They are often symbolic of the social construction of the history of a landscape and can also act as foci for identity-formation discourses (Röhring & Gailing, 2012). Landscapes can be path dependent in both an institutional and a material way. Formal institutions such as laws or other regulative documents play a decisive role in the ﬁeld of landscape policies. All such policies are—at least potentially—controversial because of different conceptualisations of nature, culture and landscape, different sectoral policy goals, or different ambitions with regard to institutional arrangements and governance structures. Taking into consideration that the behaviour of individual actors is never completely in accordance with the requirements of formal institutions, new institutionalists place special emphasis on informal institutions. Thus informal institutions on the regional scale (e.g. landscape images, symbols, or toponyms) can be considered as the most important driving forces in the process of socially constructing landscapes. In the following, this theory-based approach to landscape will be discussed with reference to empirical ﬁndings drawn from a case study of regional landscape policy in Germany (see Gailing, 2012). The Spreewald is located in the southeast of the state of Brandenburg in eastern Germany. Since 1990 the Spreewald has been a designated UNESCO biosphere reserve due to its outstanding importance as an inland delta of the River Spree. The high level of nature conservation is further justiﬁed by the presence of traditional systems of land-use: namely an irrigation system consisting of 1300 km of narrow canals. At the same time the Spreewald is not merely a biosphere reserve, but also a socially constructed landscape where institutional problems of interplay arise (see Gailing & Röhring, 2008) between competing and overlapping institutional arenas of sectoral policies. 130 L. Gailing & M. Leibenath The collective constitution of the Spreewald is highly inﬂuenced by formal sectoral institutions in the policy ﬁelds of nature conservation, tourism, agriculture, monument preservation and spatial planning. Regional institutional arenas of the Spreewald with the scope of formal institutions are the biosphere reserve, the tourism region or the LEADER region. In these regional institutional arenas the sectoral policies are operative and interact with each other. With the exception of tourism policy, the formal institutions for these institutional arenas are framed far away from the Spreewald, for example, by UNESCO, the European Union, the federal German government, or the state of Brandenburg. Important formal institutions with a large impact on regional policy in the Spreewald are, for example, the Man-and-Biosphere Programme of UNESCO, federal laws on nature conservation as well as the instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union to subsidise economic, social and environmental development in the countryside. These formal institutions come with their own sectoral core beliefs, values as well as modes of governance. Laws and regulations of nature conservation, for instance, focus on both ecological structures (such as species or ecosystems) and on landscape as a traditional aesthetic ideal inﬂuenced by landscape painting and the precepts of Romanticism. According to institutions of tourism management, landscapes such as the Spreewald are destinations and even virtual enterprises with a unique sellling proposition or image. Within the institutional framework of rural development policy, landscapes are the basis for regional labelling activities, for agro-environmental measures, and for regional collaboration activities. Due to the fact that a socially constructed landscape is a complex common good, it is impossible to design institutional regimes which can regulate all aspects of its development and use. The formal institutions of sectoral policies are formative for collective agency. But their sectoral logics of action are considerably modiﬁed by informal institutions that are formative for the social construction of a speciﬁc landscape. Informal institutions in the ﬁeld of the constitution of landscapes are factors in the social construction of regional identities. They contribute to the ontologisation or reiﬁcation of landscapes and were developed in long-term historical processes by means of subjective and intersubjective interpretations, objectivations and communicative memory in relation to the material aspects of a landscape. Important examples of such informal institutions are toponyms (‘Spreewald’), constructions of landscape boundaries (e.g. between ‘Spreewald’ and the bordering lignite-mining region ‘Niederlausitz’), traditions (e.g. festivities and local costumes) as well as spatial images and symbols (such as the haystack, the barge or traditional wooden houses in Spreewald). All the sectoral institutional arenas in Spreewald have one thing in common: the reference to the above mentioned informal institutions that are speciﬁc to this reiﬁed landscape. Regional stakeholders have established typical governance forms which are speciﬁc to the constitution of the Spreewald as a heterogeneous institutional arena, such as the strategic communication of historical or endangered physical elements, the creation of thematic locations, regional marketing, and the invention of regional traditions. Informal institutions (like traditions or symbols of the Spreewald) are used by the various collective actors such as the biosphere reserve administration, the regional tourism agency or the LEADER association as a basis for their agency, irrespective of their formal afﬁliation to a formalised sectoral institutional system. The inﬂuence of such informal regional institutions tends to be stronger than the inﬂuence The Social Construction of Landscapes 131 of formal central institutions. However, informal institutions can permeate formal ones: this is the normal case on the regional scale, where local actors and their shared meanings about ‘their’ landscape can, for instance, inﬂuence the plan of the biosphere reserve or the tourism marketing development plan. Furthermore, the spatial image of the Spreewald with its traditional symbols is so deeply rooted that it has even become the basis for agri- environmental schemes on the Brandenburg state level. In the processes of socially constructing landscapes, informal institutions can be considered as one important ‘bridging aspect’. Informal institutions such as spatial images or constructions of landscape boundaries are often generated or inﬂuenced by the scientiﬁc construction of reality, and depend upon objectiﬁcations of prior subjective feelings and perceptions. They can only come to social reality on the basis of material aspects of the landscape, and serve—once institutionalised—as effective foundations for further processes of the social construction of landscapes. Even different understandings of landscape can be analysed as informal institutions, due to the fact that they inﬂuence the agency of actors in sectoral institutional systems. Path dependencies shape agency in the Spreewald in different ways. The landscape is, for instance, path dependent in its material structures such as channels and ditches constructed to prevent ﬂooding, because when in the 1990s some nature conservationists attempted to recreate a ‘traditional’ cultural landscape with periodical ﬂooding, they did not succeed. Not only the materiality but also the informal institutions of the reiﬁed landscape can be path dependent. The small-scale traditional farming landscape of the Spreewald has vanished in many parts of the cultural landscape, but the resulting traditional images and symbols of the landscape are still important nowadays, for example, for the agency of tourism managers or the activities of the LEADER association to establish a regional brand for products from the Spreewald. Formal institutions can also lead to path dependencies in landscapes. In the Spreewald the core areas of today’s biosphere reserve are large nature protection and landscape protection areas established during the eras of National Socialism or the GDR. Path dependency is an important feature of all formal and informal institutions related to landscapes. 4. Construction of Landscapes from the Viewpoint of Post-structuralist Discourse Theory: The Case of a Controversy about Wind Energy in a Small German Town Any discussion of the discursive construction of landscapes inevitably raises the issue of materiality and how this is dealt with in discourse theory. Despite the claims of some opponents of post-structuralism, post-structuralists do not deny the existence of an extra-discursive materiality or reality. Rather they say that materiality can only become socially relevant if it is cast in discursive structures. Therefore any social reality is always a discursive reality. From this it follows that any material object—be it an earthquake, a football or a brick—can only enter social reality if it is discursively articulated and related to other objects, but also to words, subjects and/or actions. Derrida calls such sets of relations ‘text’ and consequently states that—in the realm of the social—“il n’y a pas de hors-texte” (‘‘there is nothing outside text’’, Derrida, 1993 , p. 136). This 132 L. Gailing & M. Leibenath interwovenness of materiality with the social leads to a “double reﬂexivity” (Jones III & Natter, 1999, p. 242) of materiality or space: ﬁrst, materiality, space and landscapes are conceptualised as structures that—once created—exert power over people. Second, materialities are analysed and ‘read’ as signifying systems or texts in which social relations and dominant ideologies are inscribed. The bottom line, though, is that “thought post-structurally, social space is the site of relationally constituted social meanings and relations” (Jones III & Natter, 1999, p. 243), but nothing like an ensemble of physical objects per se. This implies that “landscape is best conceived as part of a ‘constructed’ and circulating system of cultural meaning, encoded in images, texts and discourses” (Wylie, 2007, pp. 94 f.). Theoretically, the discursive construction of landscapes can be approached in at least two ways. In a more Foucauldian style of analysis one could take major discourses in politics or society, for instance, on mobility, security, energy supply or economic growth, and analyse what relations of difference are articulated between words, subjects, practices and objects. Material objects can either be treated as constitutive elements of discourses or as parts of a dispositive, that is, the apparatus through which a discourse is effected and gains material presence. For example, high-speed train lines with stations outside the city centres, long sea bridges and costly tunnels form a dispositive that belongs to the European discourse on hypermobility (see Jensen & Richardson, 2004). The material side of a discourse can then be approached as ‘landscape’ in an essentialistic sense. A second approach which is more in line with the thinking of Laclau and Mouffe begins with an empty ontology of landscape and scrutinises, in a semiotic way (see Cosgrove, 2003), how landscape as a signiﬁer acquires meaning—or better: conﬂicting meanings—by being articulated in competing discourses. In this approach landscape is treated as a political, contested notion. The second approach shall be illustrated by a case study on a controversy about wind energy in the small German town Wolfhagen in the north of Hesse. Wolfhagen is an interesting case for applying discourse theory to analysing the construction of landscapes because here two conﬂicting discourses have evolved: one in favour and one against a proposed wind power scheme. Both discourses have produced distinct concepts of landscape in general, and particularly of the speciﬁc site on which the wind park is to be constructed. The origins of the dispute can be traced back to at least 2007, when a so-called climate offensive was established in Wolfhagen. This was an alliance of citizens and the local energy supplier who wanted to curb carbon dioxide emissions and to increase the share of renewables in the local energy mix. In 2008 Wolfhagen’s town council adopted a resolution that by 2015 all households should be supplied exclusively with locally produced electricity from renewable sources. Soon it became evident that this target could be met most easily by erecting four to ﬁve wind turbines each with a height of nearly 190 metres. A commission of local ofﬁcials and representatives of civil society groups decided that the Rödeser Berg, a wooded hill about three kilometres from the city centre, was a suitable location in terms of criteria such as the wind regime and likely ecological impacts. As soon as this decision was made public, a conﬂict erupted about whether it was legitimate and desirable to construct wind turbines on the Rödeser Berg. This led to the foundation of a spate of local organisations, namely three action groups and a local branch of the Green Party. Finally, two opposing coalitions emerged, which are linked to the above-mentioned discourses. The The Social Construction of Landscapes 133 following descriptions of the discourses are based on eight semi-structured interviews with 11 key stakeholders and on document analysis. Eight documents have been analysed in detail from a corpus of about 500 documents such as manifestos, press releases, websites, ﬂyers, and newspaper articles from 2008–2012. All quotes in the following paragraphs are taken from either interview transcripts or documents. In the discourse of the proponents of the planned wind park on the Rödeser Berg, windmills are depicted as “beacons of progress” and as symbols of hope and responsibility. The Rödeser Berg itself is articulated as a forest landscape which has been under use for a long time, which has recently been damaged by a hurricane, which is very apt for harnessing wind energy and which is a place where a signiﬁcant contribution to saving the earth’s climate can be made. Furthermore, an antagonism is articulated between the Rödeser Berg on the one hand and primeval forests, high biodiversity, priority for local nature conservation, other potential construction sites which are said to feature less favourable wind regimes and hence would require more turbines, and not protecting the climate on the other hand. The adherents of this discourse articulate a broader concept of landscapes as cultural landscapes which have been, and which still can be, cultivated and altered by humans. However, they sometimes also refer to a more traditional concept of landscape as something beautiful which has to be protected. This discourse provides certain subject positions such as the advocate of climate protection and global justice. Apart from linguistic relations, the discourse includes actions such as rallies and collective ﬁeld trips, images of devastated forests on the Rödeser Berg, a video and objects such as a huge mast for wind measurements. By contrast, the opponents of the proposed wind park on the Rödeser Berg articulate wind turbines as being equivalent to “monsters” and “visual madness”, employing attributes such as “atrocious”, “gigantic” and “highly contested”. This discourse has produced a concept of the Rödeser Berg as being covered with unimpaired beech and oak woods, as a habitat of many threatened species, as an important carbon dioxide store, and as “our beautiful landscape” which is linked to elements such as “caring for nature”, “originality”, “recreation” and “tourism”. At this point it becomes obvious that, for the opponents, landscape is something to be cherished and protected against adverse inﬂuences. Moreover, a positive relation is established between other potential construction sites and the claim of preserving the woods on the Rödeser Berg. Positions antagonistic to this discourse and which are thus rejected include, of course, the plans to construct wind turbines on the Rödeser Berg and, more generally, any efforts to clear woods in favour of wind energy as well as the suitability of the wind regime at the Rödeser Berg. In this regard elements such as “danger” and “permanent disturbance of wildlife” are articulated. It is obvious that this discourse encompasses, among others, the subject position of the conservationist who defends local biodiversity. Furthermore, it clearly includes the monitoring and mapping of plant and animal species on the Rödeser Berg. Similar to the proponents’ discourse, collective ﬁeld trips, rallies, car stickers, suggestive images, a video and the mast for wind measurements also play important roles. 134 L. Gailing & M. Leibenath Although both discourses display a relatively high degree of stability, some shifts in emphasis have been evident, for instance in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear meltdown in March 2011. The case study highlights how, from a discourse theoretical point of view, linguistic elements, subject positions, actions and objects are linked together through relations of difference to form discursive structures. Second, it shows the contingency of discursively constructed landscapes: in the Rödeser Berg controversy, two completely different landscapes have been constructed with reference to the same location. Third, the case study exempliﬁes how generic landscape concepts can get blurred into place- speciﬁc, toponymic landscape concepts. 5. Conclusions This paper has shed light on the social construction of landscapes from two different theoretical angles. The investigation was conducted at two levels: ﬁrst, by discussing both theoretical approaches in general in order to gain some insight from the relevant literature; second, by applying these insights to empirical case studies concerning social constructions of landscapes. The research experience with historical institutionalism and post-structuralist discourse theory illustrates that the social construction of landscapes can be analysed from different constructivist viewpoints. Both new institutionalist and post-structuralist approaches share an anti-essentialist position. An interesting difference between the two approaches presented in this paper is the concept of “materiality” in the social construction of landscapes: institutionalists come from a multi or at least two-dimensional conception of landscape. A physical reality is inscribed in a social reality—or more precisely—in formal and informal institutions, for example, landscape laws, understandings of the trope ‘landscape’ or symbols of a speciﬁc landscape. Having said this, the haystack is not only a physical object in the Spreewald, but also an immaterial symbol of this ontologised landscape. Formal institutions, such as agro-environmental schemes for the Spreewald, promote its traditional ways of cultivation. Whereas institutionalism—like other socio-scientiﬁc approaches inspired by the works of Bourdieu (1991) or Lefebvre (1991 )—applies a dualistic view of landscapes (material landscapes and social landscapes), many followers of post- structuralist discourse theory conceptualise ‘landscape’ as a discursive effect which results from the articulation of differential relations between linguistic elements such as words or statements, but also physical objects, non-linguistic practices (e.g. going into the woods and mapping animals) and subjects. In this way physical elements such as the wind turbines on the Rödeser Berg can, in a broader sense, be understood as parts of texts, because intertextual relations to other linguistic and non-linguistic elements have been established. Landscape in this sense is always contingent because it is constituted through discourses, that is, through fragile structures of meaning. The perspectives of historical institutionalists and post-structuralist discourse theorists on the social construction of landscapes have some things in common. First, they accentuate the multiple meanings of the term ‘landscape’, dismiss purely essentialist ways of describing a certain landscape in an objective manner, and open up perspectives on the variety of social construction processes. Second, they stress the The Social Construction of Landscapes 135 possibility of different ‘landscapes’ or constructions of ‘landscapes’ occurring in one and the same physical area, due to the fact that different sectoral institutional systems or discourse coalitions each provide their own perspectives. But why does it make sense to distinguish institutionalist from discourse theoretical approaches? In the end the distinction between these two approaches to studying the social construction of landscapes is appropriate if the speciﬁc strengths of using the basic ontologies of ‘discourse’ and ‘institution’ are acknowledged: the advantages of historical institutionalism are its clear terminology concerning the mutual relationship between structure and agency, its conceptual lucidity on the importance of history and path dependency for our landscapes, and the differentiation between formal and informal institutions. In particular, the latter are important for understanding the social construction of landscapes. The advantages of post-structuralist discourse theory are the inclusion of language, systems of meaning and power in landscape research. It takes a more radical constructivist stance in that it treats categories such as institutions and actors not as explaining variables but as phenomena whose emergence has to be studied and explained. With its ontologies of discourse, power, nodal points, etc., which at ﬁrst glance appear unfamiliar, discourse theory opens up a space for critical reﬂection on social constructions of landscape and for eventual changes to them. It does so by laying bare power asymmetries that are usually taken for granted, and the contingency of social realities. In general it is not easy to make practical application of constructivist research to inform political practice. Yet such research reveals a high potential for political consultancy when actors in landscape development are open for dialogues and collaborative planning procedures and welcome mutual processes of reﬂection between science and social practice. Some authors have used the term ‘phronesis’ to describe this rationality of practice with regard to collective matters of interest (Boyte, 2011, p. 634). Phronetic research aims to interact with individuals and collective actors, bringing them to question their worldviews and values (see Flyvbjerg, 2001, p. 63). An individual or collective actor who has accepted that landscapes are social constructs and temporary results of myriad power struggles, debates, historical paths and institutionalisation processes, might be more open-minded to policy and planning methods that account for the diversity of landscape perspectives and landscape policy approaches. Thus, landscapes cannot simply be ‘made’ or ‘planned’; in democratic and pluralistic societies they are rather the complex products of collective processes of negotiation and struggle. To translate the constructivist research perspective in political practice would mean taking the spirit of the European Landscape Convention seriously. It is therefore necessary to accept multiple perspectives on and perceptions of landscape, as well as to establish procedures for the participation of individual and collective actors in landscape development policies—and in landscape research. References Andersen, N. Å. (2003) Discursive Analytical Strategies: Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann (Bristol: The Policy Press). Arthur, W. B. (1994) Increasing Returns and Path Dependance in the Economy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Belsey, C. (2002) Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press). This article discusses the social construction of landscapes from two theoretical perspectives: historical institutionalism and post-This article discusses the social construction of landscapes from two theoretical perspectives: historical institutionalism and post-structuralist discourse theory. Here's a summary of the key points: **Historical Institutionalism:** - Views landscapes as shaped by formal and informal institutions - Emphasizes the role of **path dependencies** in landscape development - Considers both material aspects and social rules in landscape construction **Post-structuralist Discourse Theory:** - Focuses on language and systems of meaning in landscape construction - Views landscapes as products of competing discourses This arti - Emphasizes the **contingent nature** of landscape constructions cle **Key Similarities:** dis - Both approaches adopt an **anti-essentialist stance** cus - Recognize multiple meanings and constructions of landscapes ses - Acknowledge the influence of power in landscape development the soci **Case Studies:** al - The Spreewald region in Germany (institutionalist perspective) con - The Rödeser Berg wind park controversy (discourse theory perspective) stru ctio **Implications:** n of - Both approaches contribute to a more democratic and pluralistic practice of landscape planning lan - Oﬀer insights into how diﬀerent actors construct and perceive landscapes dsc - Highlight the importance of considering multiple perspectives in landscape policy and management ape s fro m two the ore tica l per spe ctiv es: hist oric al inst ituti ona lism and pos t- stru ctu ralis t dis cou rse the ory. Her e's a su mm ary of the key

The Social Construction of Landscapes PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue