User Tools

Site Tools


regional_identity

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
regional_identity [2015/12/16 21:36]
bianka
regional_identity [2016/01/26 10:42] (current)
p236974
Line 1: Line 1:
-Paasi (2013) denotes regional identity as social construct, which is subject to competing discourses embedded in power relations. According to this constructivist approach, it is defined as not being fixed, but rather temporal and therefore alterable. Reproduced through hegemonic discourses, regional identity is at the same time representative of and constitutive for socio-spatial orders, by for example influencing our mental maps and collective action. Consequently,​ it plays a pivotal role for the construction and institutionalization of regions (Zimmerbauer & Paasi 2013)+===== Regional Identity =====
  
-In order to deconstruct how regional identity is made, by whom and with what consequences,​ Paasi (2003) differentiates between the identity of a region and regional identity. The former resembles the image of a region. Like other forms of collective identity, the identity of a region heavily relies on anticipated similarity which is (re-)produced through boundary-drawing and othering processes (Barth 1969, Jenkins 1996). In order to distinguish one region from another, discourses in sciences, politics, cultural activism, regional marketing, and governance draw on a range of identity sources as for example features of nature, culture and people. The latter refers to a sense of belonging, a regional consciousness and identification of people with the institutional practices, discourses and symbols that are expressive of ‘their’ region. Image of and identification with the region can but most not coincide. ​ 
  
-As other collective identities, ​regional identity ​does not only have to be claimed, but also recognized by others ​in order to be successfully performed (Jenkins 1996)This means that also internal identification and external categorization do not necessarily have to overlapwhich leads to the question how regional identities are manifestedThis is what Paasi (1986) calls institutionalization of or socialization into regional identity. Corner stones ​of this naturalization process are symbols ​and communication ​by which regional identity becomes temporarily fixed as self-evident subject (Jenkins 1996, Raagmaa 2002).+Paasi (2013) denotes ​regional identity ​as social construct, which is subject ​to competing discourses embedded ​in power relationsAccording ​to this constructivist approachit is defined as not being fixed, but rather temporal and therefore alterableReproduced through hegemonic discourses, ​regional identity ​is at the same time representative ​of and constitutive for socio-spatial orders, ​by for example influencing our mental maps and collective action. Consequently,​ it plays pivotal role for the construction and institutionalization of regions.
  
-For more informationsee: +In order to deconstruct how regional identity is madeby whom and with what consequencesPaasi (2003differentiates between the identity of a region ​and regional identity. The former resembles the image of a regionLike other forms of collective identity ​(Barth 1969, Jenkins ​1996), the identity ​of a region heavily relies on anticipated similaritywhich is (re-)produced by boundary-drawing ​and othering processesIn order to distinguish one region from anotherdiscourses ​in sciencespoliticscultural activism or regional marketing draw on a range of identity sources referring to the nature, culture, history ​and life of local people. In contrast, ​regional identity ​resembles a sense of belonginga regional consciousness and identification of people with the institutional practicesdiscourses and symbols that are expressive of ‘their’ regionImage of and identification with the region can but most not coincide.  
-BarthF. (1969): Ethnic Groups ​and Boundaries. The Social Organization ​of Culture Difference. Oslo:  + 
-  Universitetsforlaget. +As other collective identitiesregional identity does not only have to be claimed, but also recognized by others in order to be successfully performed ​(Jenkins 1996). This means that also internal identification and external categorization do not necessarily have to overlapwhich leads to the question how regional identities are manifestedThis is what Paasi (1986calls institutionalization ​of or socialization into regional ​identity. ​Corner stones of this naturalization process are symbols and communication by which regional identity becomes temporarily fixed as a self-evident entity (Jenkins 1996).
-Jenkins, R. (1996): Social identity. Key Ideas. London: Routledge.  +
-PaasiA. (2013). Regional planning and the mobilization ​of ‘regional identity’:​ from bounded spaces to relational  +
-  complexity. Regional Studies47 (8), pp. 1206-1219 +
-Paasi, A. (2003): Region ​and PlaceRegional Identity in Question, in: Progress in Human Geography27 (4)pp.  +
-  475-485. +
-Paasi, A. (1986). The institutionalization ​of regions. A theoretical framework for understanding ​the emergence of  +
-  regions ​and the constitution ​of regional identity. Fennia 164(1)pp. 105-146. +
-RaagmaaG(2002) Regional Identity in Regional Development ​and PlanningIn: European Planning ​ +
-  ​Studies10 (1), pp- 55-76. +
-ZimmerbauerK.Paasi, A. (2013): When old and new regionalism collide: Deinstitutionalization ​of  +
-  regions and resistance ​identity ​in municipality amalgamationsIn: Rural Studies 30, pp. 31-40.+
  
  
regional_identity.1450301777.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/12/16 21:36 by bianka