Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism: territory, insurgent politics and the English question

TLDR

Amid globalization and challenges to Westphalian statehood, scholars argue that regions are resurging, yet the debate is muddled by unclear definitions of regions and why some are successful or lagging. The paper seeks to clarify this debate by distinguishing regional spaces from spaces of regionalism and by questioning the trend toward abandoning scalar and territorial approaches in spatial theory. Using this distinction, the authors examine the institutionalization of England’s South West region, highlighting tensions in its economic future, political representation, territorial shape, and cultural vernacular. They show that regional maps are not neutral but reflect and shape an uneven, overlapping mosaic of economic practices, political mobilizations, cultural performances, and institutional achievements.

Abstract

Amid the globalization of economic life and a myriad of powerful challenges to Westphalian traditions of political statehood, it is now routinely contended that regions are ‘in resurgence’. Nonetheless, much of the debate on this purported regional renaissance is bedevilled by confusion over what scholars and activists mean by regions and an analogous mystification as to why some regions are ‘successful’, ‘lagging’ or ‘different’. Our paper aims to instil some coherence to this debate by distinguishing between what we term regional spaces and spaces of regionalism . It then draws on this distinction to explore the institutionalization of England's South West region, highlighting some tensions which prevail over its economic future, its political representation, its territorial shape and cultural vernacular. In undertaking this, we demonstrate how the formation of any given regional map is reflective – and indeed constitutive – of an unevenly developing, often overlapping and superimposing mosaic of economic practices, political mobilizations, cultural performances and institutional accomplishments. This prompts us to question the currently fashionable inclination to fully jettison a scalar and/or territorial approach to the theory and practice of spatiality in favour of relational/topological/non‐territorial approaches.