Landscape, mobility, practice

Abstract

Abstract This paper is an edited transcript of a panel discussion on ‘Landscape, Mobility and Practice’ which was held at the Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Annual Conference in September 2006. In the paper the panel engage with the work of geographers and others who have been drawing upon theories of practice to explore issues of mobility and how we encounter, apprehend, inhabit and move through landscapes. The contributors discuss the usefulness of conceptions of landscape vis-à-vis place and space, and different traditions of apprehending, practising and articulating the more-than-representational dimensions of landscapes. The panel discuss the entwining of issues of power and politics with different representations, practices and understandings of landscape/landscaping, and a number of the panellists position their thinking on the politics of landscape in relation to recent work on the politics of affect. L'objet de cet article est de présenter la transcription révisée d'un débat d'experts sur le thème «Paysage, Mobilité et Pratique» organisé dans le cadre du congrès annuel de la Royal Geographical Society et de l'Institute of British Geographers tenu en septembre 2006. Dans l'article, le panel s'intéresse aux travaux de chercheurs en géographie et dans d'autres disciplines qui s'appuient sur des théories de la pratique pour explorer les enjeux de mobilité et comment nous abordons, concevons, habitons et nous déplaçons à travers les paysages. Les membres du panel discutent de l'utilité des conceptions du paysage par rapport au lieu et à l'espace, et des diverses traditions sur la manière de concevoir, pratiquer et articuler les dimensions plus que représentationnelles des paysages. La discussion du panel porte sur le croisement des enjeux de pouvoir et de politique avec les différentes représentations, pratiques et connaissances du paysage/paysagement. Certains panélistes développent leur pensée sur la politique du paysage en lien avec les travaux récents menés sur la politique de l'affect. Este papel es la transcripción recortada de un debate de pánel sobre ‘paisaje, movilidad y práctica’ que tuvo lugar durante la Conferencia Anual de RGS-IBG en septiembre de 2006. En el papel, el pánel habla del trabajo de geógrafos y otros que han hecho uso de teorías de práctica como modo de explorar temas de movilidad y cómo nos encontramos con paisajes, cómo los percibimos, los habitamos y cómo nos movemos por ellos. Los colaboradores hablan de la utilidad de concepciones de paisaje con respecto a lugar y espacio y de las diferentes modos de percebir, practicar y articular las dimensiones más-que-representacionales de los paisajes.El pánel habla de los temas interrelacionados de poder y política con diferentes representaciones, prácticas y entendimientos de paisaje y algunos de los colaboradores relacionan su pensamiento sobre la política del paisaje con trabajo sobre la política de afecto. Keywords: geographynon-representational theoryaffectplacerepresentationmaterialityaestheticsvisualityKeywords: géographiethéorie non représentationnelleaffectlieureprésentationsmatérialitéesthétiquevisualitéKeywords: geografíateoría no representacionalafectolugarrepresentaciónmaterialidadestéticavisualidad Acknowledgements Pete and George would like to thank the speakers and audiences of all four sessions on ‘Landscape, Mobility and Practice’ at the 2006 RGS-IBG Annual Conference. They would also like thank the RGS-IBG's Historical Geography Research Group for sponsoring the session, Paul Wright for transcribing the tapes, the Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences at Aberystwyth University for funding the transcription, and the audience members who granted permission for their questions to be reproduced in the paper. Notes 1 The panel discussion was held on Friday 1 September 2006 in the Education Centre at the RGS-IBG headquarters, Kensington Gore, London. The panel was organised and chaired by the two of us (Peter Merriman and George Revill), and the session was sponsored by the RGS-IBG's Historical Geography Research Group. The ninety-minute session was recorded, transcribed, and was edited in two stages. Firstly, as editors we reduced the length of the transcript to fit the journal format and improve the flow. As we wanted to maintain the continuity of the panellists' contributions, unfortunately this meant cutting a number of questions from the discussion. In the second stage, we sent the text to the contributors who clarified any ambiguous points, added references and approved their contributions. 2 Sheller and Urry (Citation2006) have referred to this as a ‘new mobilities paradigm’. 3 At the heart of Nigel Thrift's outlining of non-representational theories was a plea for geographers and other social scientists to expand their repertoire of methods and engage with more performative methods (e.g. Thrift Citation2000; Thrift and Dewsbury Citation2000). And yet, while some have interpreted this as a problematic call for social scientists to look beyond ‘texts’ and ‘representations’, in one sense Thrift was urging social scientists to rethink their understandings of textuality, (re)presentation, and materiality, to comprehend the ongoing, practical, performative and relational unfolding of the world. As he stated in Spatial Formations he was ‘more concerned with “presentations”, showings and manifestations’ than with representations ‘understood as singularised images standing for something else’ (Thrift Citation1996: x). Thus, while many geographers have drawn upon non-representational theories and methods in an attempt to explore the performative dimensions of contemporary practices and spaces, there are a significant number of academics researching: past practices and performances (including those of remembering the past in the present); the performativities of ‘textual’ methods, archive research etc.; and the performative dimensions of producing and consuming material things which others have labelled ‘texts’ or ‘representations’.