Commentary 51 9

In 1987 Denis Cosgrove and I outlined sev- eral new directions that cultural geographers might wish to explore, informed by (and in- forming) the recent “cultural turn” in the social sciences. This is the extent to which I would describe myself as belonging to a group of “new cultural geographers”-a phrase which 1

References

Denevan, W.M. 1983. Adaptation, variation, and cultural geography. The Professional Geography

Wagner, RL., and Mikesell, M.W. 1962. Readings in cultural geography. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press.

35~399-407.

Berkeley and Beyond: Broadening the Horizons of Cultural Geography

Marie Price and Martin Lewis have per- formed a useful service, illustrating the diversity of empirical work currently being undertaken in the “cultural tradition at Berkeley.” But their crude caricature of the field in terms of two starkly opposed and warring factions, bitterly engaged in a “struggle for iconoclastic turf,” misses an opportunity to bring the different strands of cultural geography into serious dia- logue. From their perspective, cultural geogra- phy is beset by “tribal tendencies,“ divided into “antagonistic camps,” with one group (labeled “traditionalists”) having now “relinquished the field” to the other (labeled “avant-garde”). Far from promoting constructive debate between cultural geography‘s many strands, Price and Lewis’s essay is likely only to increase their estrangement.

Rather than express the many detailed res- ervations I have about their argument, I will restrict myself here to three main points of clarification and debate. In each case, my aim is prospective, looking forward to future re- search opportunities where the kinds of divi- sions outlined by Price and Lewis will be su- perseded, rather than retrospective, seeking to defend a particular intellectual tradition from its supposed assailants.

(1) Characterization of the “New Cultural Geographers”

does scant justice to the range and diversity of work being undertaken within this complex and fast-developing field. As readers of our work will know, there are many significant dif- ferences between Cosgrove‘s landscape ico- nography, Duncan’s literary post-structuralism, and my own brand of “cultural politics.” There simply is no “group of scholars” who are defin- ing themselves as “new cultural geographers,” despite Price and Lewis’s assertion to the con- trary.

(2) Characterization of the “Berkeley School”

Despite my critical review in Maps of Mean- ing (Jackson 1989), that work should not be interpreted as an attempt to denigrate the achievements of the “Berkeley school” or to deny its far-reaching influence on Anglo- American geography. Though critical, the fact that I began my account of cultural geography with a discussion of the “Berkeley school” was a recognition of the continued relevance of Carl Sauer and his legacy to current develop- ments in cultural geography. If any criticism, however constructive, is to be taken amiss, then hagiography will replace historiography and our disciplinary history will be greatly im- poverished.

I have never insisted on “completely sup- planting. . . older forms of scholarship” (p. 2), but have drawn on a range of intellectual tra- ditions from cultural studies and historical ma- terialism as well as from Sauer and his succes- sors at Berkeley. Sauer was himself a staunch advocate of interdisciplinarity and would have condemned any attempt to restrict the boundaries of intellectual inquiry. Price and Le- wis‘s insistence on placing authors in their “proper” intellectual context and their exclu- sion of others from the Berkeley canon sug- gests an undue narrowing of intellectual hori- zons and an unhealthy desire to police disci- plinary boundaries. Rather than insisting on our fidelity to one particular “school,” I would focus our energies on asking new questions and opening up new avenues of inquiry.

My own empirical work since Maps of Meaning has been dedicated to that end, through field-based studies of the cultural poli- tics of Carnival, the racialization of labor in post-war Bradford, and the deterioration of po-

520 Commentary

lice-community relations in Toronto. M y cur- rent work on consumption and identity in- volves a similar rapprochement between social and cultural geography, mapping the many ne- glected geographies of “race“ and class, gen- der and sexuality-questions that were scarcely central to the cultural tradition at Berkeley. These empirical studies have demanded new theories of culture. Rather than explaining “cul- ture” in terms of historical processes (as though “history“ were somehow independent of “cul- ture”), l have theorized culture as a dynamic process that is itself historically and geographi- cally specific. While this approach raises new questions about contem porary metropolitan cultures, it can equally be applied to rural, non- Western cultures, today and in the past (as Pred and Watts [I9921 have recently shown).

(3) Possibilities for Reconciliation

I share Price and Lewis‘s respect for the com- mitment of Berkeley geographers to “pro- longed ethnographic work,” much of it in “non-English-speaking settings.” But I would also point to the range of empirical work being undertaken by geographers who have found inspiration in other traditions of cultural re- search, employing different theories of culture (see the recent collections by Barnes and Dun- can [I9921 and Anderson and Gale [I9921 as well as the monographs by Cosgrove and Dun- can referred to by Price and Lewis). Sauer’s strengths were in study of landscape, nature, and environment; but questions of space, place, and locality are no less interesting or demanding topics for geographical inquiry. Moreover, as recent attempts at “reconstruct- ing Nature” have demonstrated (e.g., FitzSim- mons 1989), there is renewed hope for pro- ductive dialogue across the lines that have con- ventionally kept us apart.

While I would strongly resist dividing the field into “old-fashioned” and “avant-garde,” I share Price and Lewis‘s desire for “methodo- logical and thematic diversity” (p. 1 ). Accusing other authors of selective amnesia, intellectual jockeying, hasty scholarship, careerism, elitist posturing, and egregious error will do little to encourage such plurality and mutual tolerance. If we are to make genuine progress in cultural geography, we should certainly be prepared to acknowledge our intellectual debts, within ge-

ography and beyond. But we should also be prepared to move forward, expanding our in- tellectual horizons and asking new questions, some of which stem directly from Carl Sauer and the cultural tradition at Berkeley, and some of which are quite independent of it.

Peter Jackson, Department o f Geography, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WClH OAP, U.K.

References

Anderson, K., and Gale, F., eds. 1992. Inventing places. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Barnes, T.J., and Duncan, J.S., eds. 1992. Writing worlds. London: Routledge.

Cosgove, D., and Jackson, P. 1987. New directions in cultural geography. Area 19:95-101.

FitzSimrnons, M. 1989. Reconstructing nature. En- vironment and Planning D: Society and Space

Jackson, P. 1989. Maps ofmeaning. London: Unwin Hyman. Reprinted 1992, London: Routledge.

Pred, A., and Watts, M. 1992. Reworking modern- ity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

7:1-3.

Reply: O n Reading Cultural Geography

The meanings extracted from our text by Jackson, Duncan, and Cosgrove tend to rein- force their own expectations and predilections, yet they often miss our original intentions. We are therefore grateful for the opportunity to clarify certain contestable seams in our argu- ment. Several of their specific interpretations, however, suggest either that our text was given a partial reading or that certain passages within it were considered void. Against these latter comments, we can only repeat ourselves and proclaim our sincerity in endorsing mutual tol- erance and respect for cultural geography’s pluralism.

As is explicitly stated in our first note, we fully concur that there is no coherent “new school of cultural geography.” Moreover, we too caution against hagiography, and we ac- knowledge that many of the accusations lev- eled against the Berkeley school are merited. We also agree that the ”policing” of disciplinary boundaries is highly destructive. To reiterate: we celebrate the cultural geographies of our