Idee postmodernizmu w geografii społeczno-ekonomicznej = Postmodernist ideas in human geography

Maik, Wiesław

doi:0033-2143 (print)

- ris
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Csv

Idee postmodernizmu w geografii społeczno-ekonomicznej = Postmodernist ideas in human geography Maik, Wiesław

Object structure

Idee postmodernizmu w geografii społeczno-ekonomicznej = Postmodernist ideas in human geography

Przegląd Geograficzny T. 88 z. 4 (2016)

postmodernism ; human geography ; postmodern turning point

At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, the debate surrounding postmodernism transformed the intellectual “scene” of many scientific disciplines, also exerting an impact on human geography, especially in the Anglo-Saxon countries. If the links between geography and postmodernism are to be presented in a wider context, the three questions in need of an answer are as follows. What is postmodernism? Can we talk about postmodern geography? What impulses have postmodernism ideas brought to contemporary human geography? The first part is devoted to the presentation of postmodernism as a broad intellectual movement at the turn of the century. Evoking a number of conflicting reactions over the years, it has its enthusiastic supporters and fierce opponents. The controversies surrounding the concept and assumptions of postmodernism arise in two ways. Firstly, the term has three meanings: (1) as the phase of development of culture following the period of modernism, (2) as the name of the post-modern cultural-civilizational era following modernism, (3) as a kind of postmodern condition, which is formed by the social, economic and mental characteristics of the West’s post-industrial civilisation. Secondly, postmodern thought emerged from a number of sources and was shaped by representatives of different fields of science, culture and politics. As a result, postmodernism encompasses various positions and options, and its programme is pluralistic. The postmodern debate appeared in human geography in the mid-1980s. The trend was portrayed by some researchers as a manifestation of a new postmodern geography, while others wrote about a postmodern turning point in geography. Postmodernism in geography boasts its supporters and fierce adversaries. On the one hand, it has been greeted by renowned geographers as a basis for the reconstruction of the geography concept, and as a source of many inspiring innovations; while on the other it has encountered considerable resistance on the part of many geographers who have regarded its ideas as a threat to the discipline’s identity. In fact, the formulation of the thesis regarding the identity of postmodern geography is questionable, and it seems better to talk about the aforesaid postmodern turn that the discipline has taken. The latter term includes two interacting motifs: (1) criticism of the current status and assumptions of human geography and (2) a postulate that modernist thought and methodology in geography be broken with. The postmodern turning point in geography has introduced many “fertilising” impulses and innovations, such as: (1) the revitalisation of the debate regarding the discipline’s tradition and mission, (2) a postulate to the effect that human geography should be approximated to the mainstream of contemporary sociology and social theory, (3) stimulation of a discussion regarding the language of science and its representation in “harsh reality”. Postmodernist ideas are in turn deemed to denote most strongly the areas of: (1) the study of contemporary urbanism, (2) the conceptualisation of space and the relationship between space, time and society, (3) the so-called new cultural geography that grew up on the basis of post-structuralism and postmodernism. Any cumulative assessment of the impact of postmodernism on geography is made difficult for at least two reasons: firstly, the controversies surrounding the consequences of the postmodern turn taken by contemporary geography have not ceased, and secondly, postmodernism has not created a positive programme for how our discipline in any postmodern phase might be pursued and “cultivated”.

1. Anderson P., 1998, The Origins of Postmodernity, Verso, London.
2. Baumann Z., 1991, Is there a postmodern sociology, [w:] Z. Baumann, Intimations of Postmodernity, Routledge, New York, London, s. 93-113.
3. Benko G., Strohmayer V. (red.), 1997, Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity, Blackwell, Oxford.
4. Chojnicki Z., 1993, Postmodernistyczne zmiany globalnego porządku społeczno-gospodarczego, [w:] A. Kukliński (red.), Polonia, quo vadis?, Studia Regionalne i Lokalne 12 (45), Europejski Instytut Rozwoju Regionalnego i Lokalnego, Warszawa, s. 167-204.
5. Chojnicki Z., 2000, Filozofia nauki. Orientacje, koncepcje, krytyki, Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań.
6. Chojnicki Z., 2004, Podstawy filozoficzne geografii – jakiej filozofii potrzebuje geografia, [w:] Z. Chojnicki (red.), Geografia wobec problemów teraźniejszości i przyszłości, Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań, s. 191-207.
7. Czepczyński M., 2007, Podejście badawcze w nowej geografii kultury, [w:] W. Maik, K. Rembowska, A. Suliborski (red.), Geografia a przemiany współczesnego świata, Wydawnictwo Uczelniane WSG, Bydgoszcz, s. 203-211.
8. Davis M.J., 1990, City of Quart: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles, Verso, New York.
9. Dear M.J., 1986, Postmodernism and planning, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 4, s. 367-384.
https://doi.org/10.1068/d040367 -
10. Dear M.J., 1988, The postmodern challenge: Reconstructing human geography, Transactions 13, Institute of British Geographers, s. 262-274.
11. Dear M.J., 2000, The Postmodern Urban Condition, Blackwell, Oxford.
12. Dear M.J., Flusty S. (red.), 2002, The Spaces of Postmodernity: Readings in Human Geography, Blackwell, Oxford.
13. Derrida J., 1999, Marx & Sons, [w:] M. Sprinker (red.), Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida's Spectres of Marx, Verso, London.
14. Dutkowski M., 1998, Geograficzne badania miast wobec ponowoczesności i postmodernizmu, [w:] X Konwersatorium Wiedzy o Mieście. Metodologia geografii osadnictwa na przełomie wieków, Łódź, s. 39-47.
15. Dziamski G., 2003, Postmodernizm, [w:] Encyklopedia Britannica, Edycja polska, t. 34, Wydawnictwo Kurpisz, Poznań, s. 133-135.
16. Eagleton T., 1998, Iluzje postmodernizmu, Wydawnictwo Spacja, Warszawa.
17. Eagleton T., 2003, After Theory, Allen Lane, London.
18. Elliott A., 2009, Contemporary Social Theory. An Introduction, Routledge, New York (wyd. pol. 2011, Współczesna teoria społeczna, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa).
19. Giedymin J., 1994, Czy warto przyjąć propozycje tekstualizmu, [w:] T. Kostryko (red.), Dokąd zmierza współczesna humanistyka?, Instytut Kultury, Warszawa, s. 49-59.
20. Gilbert M., 1997, Feminism and differences in urban geography, Urban Geography, 18, s. 166-179.
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.18.2.166 -
21. Gregory D., 1997, Lefebvre, Lacan and the production of space, [w:] G. Benko, V. Strohmayer (red.), Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity, Blackwell, Oxford, s. 203-231.
22. Gregory D., 1997, Lacan and geography: The production of space revisited, [w:] G. Benko, V. Strohmayer (red.), Space and Social Theory: Interpreting Modernity and Postmodernity, Blackwell, Oxford, s. 203-231.
23. Harvey D., 1989, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Blackwell, Oxford.
24. Harvey D., 2001, The geography of capitalist accumulation, [w:] D. Harvey (red.), Spaces of Capital, Routledge, New York, s. 237-266.
25. Jameson F., 1984, The Postmodern Condition, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
26. Jameson F., 1991, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Duke University Press, Durham (wyd. pol. 2011, Postmodernizm, czyli logika kulturowa późnego kapitalizmu, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków).
27. Ley D., 1987, Styles of the times: Liberal and neo conservative landscapes in inner Vancouver, 1968-1986, Journal of Historical Geography, 13, s. 40-56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-7488(87)80005-1 -
28. Ley D., 1993, Co-operative housing as a moral landscape: Re-examing "the postmodern city", [w:] J. Duncan, D. Ley (red.), Place, Culture, Representation, Routledge, London, s. 128-148.
29. Ley D., 2003, Forgetting postmodernism? Recuperating a social history of local knowledge, Progress in Human Geography, 27, 5, s. 537-560.
https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132503ph448oa -
30. Lisowski A., 1998, Postmodernistyczna dekonstrukcja geografii miast, X Konwersatorium Wiedzy o Mieście. Metodologia geografii osadnictwa na przełomie wieków, Łódź, s. 31-38.
31. Lyotard J.F., 1997, Kondycja ponowoczesna. Raport o stanie wiedzy, Fundacja Aletheia", Warszawa.
32. Kuźniar B., 2011, Goodbye Mr. Postmodernism. Teorie społeczne myślicieli późnej lewicy, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, Toruń.
33. Maik W., 2012, Podstawy teoretyczno-metodologiczne studiów geograficzno-miejskich. Studium z metodologii miast, Wydawnictwo Uczelniane WSG, Bydgoszcz.
34. Minca C., 2009, Postmodernism /postmodern geography, [w:] R. Kitchin, N. Thritt (red.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Elsevier, Amsterdam, s. 363-372.
35. Olsson G., 1991, Lines of Power/Limits of Language, University of Minessota Press, Minneapolis.
36. Philo Ch., 2000, More words, more words; Reflections on the cultural turn and human geography, [w:] I. Cook, D. Crouch, S. Naylor, J.R. Ryan (red.), Cultural Turns/Geographical Turns: Perspectives on Cultural Geography, Prentice Hall, Harlow, s. 26-53.
37. Posiad A., 2000, Słownik terminów i pojęć filozoficznych, Instytut Wydawniczy Pax, Warszawa.
38. Rembowska K., 2008, Miasto postmodernistyczne. Perspektywy badań geograficznych, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Geographica Socio-Oeconomica, 9, s. 3-13.
39. Rowntree L.B., 1988, Orthodoxy and new directions: Cultural / humanistic geography, Progress in Human Geography, 12, 4, s. 575-586.
https://doi.org/10.1177/030913258801200409 -
40. Scott A.J., Soja E.W. (red.), 1996, The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century, University of California Press, Berkeley.
41. Smith N., 1970, Toward a theory of gentrification: A back to the city movement by capital not people, Journal of American Planning Association, 45, s. 538-548.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367908977002 -
42. Soja E.W., 1989, Postmodernism Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory, Verso, New York.
43. Soja E.W., 1996, Thirdspace: Journey to Los Angeles and Other Real and Imagined Places, Blackwell, Oxford.
44. Soja E.W., 2000, Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions, Blackwell, Oxford.
45. Soja E., 2002, The new regionalism: A conversation with Edward Soja. Interview by R. Ehrenforst, Critical Planning, 9, s. 5-12.
46. Soja E.W., 2008, Tacking space personally, [w:] B. Warf, S. Arias (red.), The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Routledge, New York, London, s. 11-34.
47. Soja E.W., 2009, Regional planning and development theories, [w:] N. Thrift, R. Kitchin (red.), The International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Elsevier, Amsterdam, s. 259-270.
48. Sorkin M., 1992, Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of Public Space, Noonday, New York.
49. Szacki J., 2002, Historia myśli socjologicznej. Wydanie nowe, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
50. Turner J.H., 2004, Struktura teorii socjologicznej. Wydanie nowe, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
51. Waldinger R., Bozorgmehr M. (red.), 1996, Ethnic Los Angeles, Russell Sage, New York.
52. Wilkoszewska K., 1992, O pojęciu postmodernizm" uwag kilka, [w:] A. Zeidler-Janiszewska (red.), Oblicze postmoderny, Instytut Kultury, Warszawa, s. 6-16.
53. Webber P., 2007, The metropolitan habitus: Its manifestation, locations, and consumption profiles, Environment and Planning A, 39, 1, s. 182-207.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a38478 -
54. Zukin S., 1987, Gentrification: Culture and capital in the urban core, Annual Review of Sociology, 13, s. 129-147.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.13.1.129 -
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.001021 -