2006 Volume 58 Issue 2 Pages 145-165
Recently, studies of not only territory and territoriality but also of regional consciousness and regional identity seem to be one of the most important research fields in geography. In English-speaking countries, they have rapidly developed after the strict criticism of positivist geography in the 1970s that attacked the importance of space, especially physical distance. At the same time, social spaces constructed by the geography of power were recognized as a significant new area of thought. Several geographers such as Sack, Häkli, Anderson, Agnew et al., have contributed to the description of the changing character of territories organized in the long-term historical process of a society. However, it seems to go against the current orientation of geographical studies that their research did not argue over the influences of territorial boundaries on regions and the creation of a region through the construction or transformation of territories. Second, they did not discuss the close relations between research on territory and territoriality, on the one hand, and regional identity, on the other hand, even if they were significant for research on social constructs.
In Germany, studies of territory have been conducted for much longer than research in English-speaking countries, because the territorial boundaries of the old small states or territories have been closely related to the social lives of the inhabitants under the late state integration of Germany in 1871. In the 1980s, however, studies of regional consciousness and regional identity have been rapidly revitalized in the “Heimat boom” and regionalism which appeared in the ongoing globalization. The research presentations of Blotevogel et al. as a working group on ‘territoriality and regional identity’ gave rise to a serious dispute with those geographers such as Hard who asserted the contemporary disappearance of regional identity.
As regional identities principally arise within a territory which separates us from the others, they are closely related to territories. Paasi and Blotevogel insisted that a region could be understood in a more complete form than ever by adding regional identities to the consideration, and then its research field could be expanded not only theoretically but also practically. However, we cannot see both fields of study as two sides of the same coin, because each has an independent orientation. For example, a naturally-growing area such as the New Industrial District in Baden-Wurttemberg does not belong to an administrative area, even though it has already developed its own regional identity. Although a police territory is important for our social lives, the regional identities of inhabitants are not formed and based upon it. Therefore, the study fields can be divided into three: (1) territory and territoriality, (2) regional consciousness and regional identity, (3) both together.
Considering the practical uses of these research results, however, it is desirable to investigate a region from both sides at the same time. Without considering the regional identities of the inhabitants one cannot obtain satisfying solutions to such issues as the regional reform of administration, school establishment, and so on. Especially in German-speaking countries, the research results of regional identities are available not only in regional planning but also in urban and regional marketing. These investigations will also be able to contribute to a consideration of the recent amalgamation of municipalities called ‘Heisei-no-daigappei’ in Japan.
Although the continual development of research on regional identities as well as territory and territoriality is expected in the future, it is important to establish suitable research methods for the study of regional identity.
(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)
