Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:30:27.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the ‘Topographical Turn’: Concepts of Space in Cultural Studies and Kulturwissenschaften. A Cartographic Feud†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2009

Sigrid Weigel
Sigrid Weigel
Affiliation:
Zentrum für Literatur- und Kulturforschung; Schützenstr. 18, D-10117 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Addressing the ‘topographical turn’ in cultural theory which emphasizes spatial constellations and sites, the article discusses concepts of space both in Anglo-American Cultural Theory and in European Culture Studies in order to develop their differences. Within Cultural Studies the program to ‘spatialize’ historical narratives has created a whole language of symbolic topographical figures which function as a counter-discourse for minorities. To argue against the tendency of translating theories in order to transform them into ‘neutral tools’, independent of their historical origin, the article discusses various space-discourses in European cultural theories; it refers to studies from the current cultural reorientation of the humanities but also to those from the early 20th century to illuminate different relationships between philosophy, historiography and cultural techniques.

Type
Focus: European Literature
Information
European Review , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 187 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes and References

1.Harvey, M. (2000) The Island of Maps – A True Story of Cartographic Crime (New York: Random House). The German title – Gestohlene Welten – translates as ‘stolen worlds’.Google Scholar
2. ‘Verlorene Weltkarte’, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 23 July 2001.Google Scholar
3. ‘Verlorene Weltkarte’, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 23 July 2001.Google Scholar
4. Waldseemüller, who was born in Freiburg in southern Germany in 1475, subsequently began preparing the new Strasbourg edition of Ptolemy’s Geographia (1513) under the patronage of Duke René de Lorraine and his son Antoine as well as the Carta itineraria Europae (1511), the first printed wall map of Europe, and other navigational maps. See the biographical entry on Waldseemüller in P. Kreeft and R. Tacelli (eds) (1995) Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Crowborough).Google Scholar
5. A. Korzybski (1958) Science and Sanity. An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (Lakeville), as cited by W. Schäffner (1997) Operationale Topographie: Repräsentationsräume in den Niederlanden um 1600. In: H.-J. Rheinberger et al., Räume des Wissens: Repräsentation, Codierung, Spur (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), p. 66.Google Scholar
6. The term ‘diffusionism’ describes the belief in European hegemony and the myth of the autonomous rise to power of Europe.Google Scholar
7. E. W. Soja (1989) Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory (London, New York: Verso).Google Scholar
8.Rabasa, J. (1987) Dialogue as conquest: mapping spaces for counter-discourse. Cultural Critique, 6, 133.Google Scholar
9.Rabasa, J. (1987) Dialogue as conquest: mapping spaces for counter-discourse. Cultural Critique, 6, 146.Google Scholar
10. See also H. Lefebvre (1991) The Production of Space (Oxford), originally published in French as La Production de l’espace (1974) and reprinted no fewer than 12 times until 1999. Lefebvre’s account became far more influential in critical studies than in the development of theory in Europe. His triad (social practices, representation of space, and representational space) is one of the key frames of reference of the spatial turn in Cultural Studies.Google Scholar
11. Such as the collection of writings entitled Mikrophysik der Macht. Über Strafjustiz, Psychiatrie und Medizin (Berlin: Merve, 1976).Google Scholar
12.Gilroy, P. (1993) The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), p. 1.Google Scholar
13.Braudel, F. (1949) La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époche de Philippe II (Paris: Colin; second revised and augmented edition 1966).Google Scholar
14. See J. Clifford (1989) Notes on theory and travel. Special Issue of Inscriptions, 5. J. Clifford (1992) Traveling cultures. In: L. Grossberg et al. (eds), Cultural Studies (New York; London), pp. 96–116; and J. Clifford (1997) Routes. Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century (London).Google Scholar
15.Pratt, M. L. (1986) Fieldwork in common places. In: Clifford, J. and Marcus, G. E. (eds), Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
16.Hillis Miller, J. (1995) Topographies (Stanford: Stanford University Press), p. 19.Google Scholar
17.Bakhtin, M. (1981) Forms of time and of the chronotope in the novel: notes towards a historical poetics. In: Holquist, M. (ed.), trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (Austin: University of Texas Press).Google Scholar
18. See W. Benjamin (1980) Gesammelte Schriften, edited by R. Tiedemann and H. Schweppenhäuser (Frankfurt/M.) vol. I, 1, p. 271. G. Bachelard (1957) La poètique de l’espace (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France), p. 27. On the relationship between literature and topography, see further S. Weigel (1990) Topographien der Geschlechter: Kulturgeschichtliche Studien zur Literatur (Reinbek) and the chapter on topographical poetology in S. Weigel (1999) Ingeborg Bachmann: Hinterlassenschaften unter Wahrung des Briefgeheimnisses (Vienna).Google Scholar
19.Moretti, F. (1998) Atlas of the European Novel, 1800–1900 (New York; London: Verso).Google Scholar
20.Hillis Miller, J. (1995) Topographies (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp. 321 (original emphasis), 322, 323.Google Scholar
21.Hillis Miller, J. (1995) Topographies (Stanford: Stanford University Press), p. 317.Google Scholar
22. M. Foucault (1984) Des espaces autres (conférence au Cercle d’études architecturales, 14 mars 1967). In: Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité, no. 5, Octobre 1984, pp. 46–49. The reception of Foucault’s Heterotopias has tended to focus on ‘other spaces’ or excluded ones – often as a formula for pathos. However, he is in actual fact more concerned with how ideas and conceptions that are not genuinely spatial actually appropriate space, such as mirror scenes.Google Scholar
23.Augé, M. (1992) Non-Lieux (Paris: Seuil), p. 66.Google Scholar
24.Braudel, F. (1966) La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époche de Philippe II (Paris: Colin; second revised and augmented edition), vol. 1, p. 10.Google Scholar
25. This applies only to Braudel’s account of the Mediterranean, but not to his theory of culture per se. See, for instance, his deliberations on cultural history in F. Braudel (1969) Écrits sur l’historie (Paris: Flammarion), first published in English as F. Braudel (1980) On History, trans. Sarah Matthews (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
26. O. Spengler (1918, 1922) Der Untergang des Abendlandes. Umrisse einer Morphologie der Weltgeschichte (Munich: Beck, 2 vols), published in English as O. Spengler (1926–1928) The Decline of the West, trans. C. F. Atkinson (New York: Knopf).Google Scholar
27.Cassirer, E. (1953–1957) Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, trans. R. Manheim (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
28. See, in particular, G. Simmel (1992) Der Raum und die räumlichen Ordnungen der Gesellschaft. Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftlichung. In: O. Rammstedt (ed.) Gesamtausgabe (Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp), vol. 11, pp. 687–790.Google Scholar
29. The original reads: ‘der Mensch ist a-politisch. Politik entsteht in dem Zwischen-den-Menschen, also durchaus außerhalb des Menschen. […] Politik handelt von den Zusammen- und Miteinander-Sein der Verschiedenen. Politisch organisieren sich die Menschen nach bestimmten wesentlichen Gemeinsamkeiten in einem absoluten Chaos […] der Differenzen.’ See H. Arendt (1993) Was ist Politik? Fragmente aus dem Nachlaß, edited by U. Ludz (Munich: Piper), pp. 9 and 11f.Google Scholar
30. W. Burkert (1996) Konstruktion des Raumes und räumliche Kategorien im griechischen Denken. In: D. Reichert (ed.) Räumliches Denken (Zurich), pp. 57–85; esp. pp. 63 and 71.Google Scholar
31. F. Aguilon (1613) Opticorum libri sex (Antwerp); quoted from F. Farinelli (1996) Von der Natur der Moderne: Eine Kritik der kartographischen Vernunft. In: D. Reichert (ed.) Räumliches Denken (Zurich), pp. 267–301; esp. p. 269.Google Scholar
32. F. Farinelli (1996) Von der Natur der Moderne: Eine Kritik der kartographischen Vernunft. In: D. Reichert (ed.) Räumliches Denken (Zurich), p. 280.Google Scholar
33. The original reads: ‘den Verstand zu einem gewissen Ziele zu richten, in Aussicht auf welches die Richtungslinien aller seiner Regeln in einem Punkt zusammenlaufen, der, ob er zwar nur eine Idee (focus imaginarius), d.i. ein Punkt ist, aus welchem die Verstandesbegriffe wirklich nicht ausgehen, indem er ganz außerhalb der Grenzen möglicher Erfahrung liegt, dennoch dazu dient, ihnen die größte Einheit neben der größten Ausbreitung zu verschaffen.’ See I. Kant (1977) Werke in zwölf Bänden, edited by W. Weischedel (Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp), vol. 4, p. 565.Google Scholar
34. F. Farinelli (1996) Von der Natur der Moderne: Eine Kritik der kartographischen Vernunft. In: D. Reichert (ed.) Räumliches Denken (Zurich), p. 282.Google Scholar
35. Prior to expounding his thesis on Kant, Farinelli has recourse to Hobbes. He enlists the latter to substantiate his ideal notion of unequivocal reference, which he delimits strictly from metaphorical usage, arguing that things attain such certainty only in cartographic representation and the geometric image. Notably, however, Farinelli remains oblivious to the fact that Hobbes’s delimitation from metaphor rests on comparison. By contrast, he offers a more persuasive reading of the frontispiece to Leviathan, which he interprets as a figure of projection, where the Point G, the source of projection, and thus the world, coincides with the apex of the crown, which symbolizes the state’s monopoly of power.Google Scholar