structuration and place

8/10/2019 Structuration and place

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/structuration-and-place 1/13

Structuration and Place : On the

Becoming of Sense of Place and

Structure of Feeling*

ALLAN PRED

S T R U C T U R A T I O N A N D T I M E -G E O G R A P H Y

Individual and society. Practice and structure. Agency and structure. Social

ization and social reproduction. These are the coupled categories usually

depicted as dialectically reproducing and transforming one another in the

unbroken process of “structuration.” Although Bhaskar, Bourdieu, Giddens,

and the other social theorists and social philosophers identifiable with the

structu ration school of thoug ht differ in their selection of foci and ca tegories,

they for the most part share certain overlapping and interlocking views thatmay be crudely re duced as follows.̂

Social reproduction is a constantly ongoing process whereby, in a given

area, the everyday perfo rm a nce o f institutional activities (including those

mun dan e practices associated with the institution of the family) not only

results in biological reproduction, but also in the perpetuation or modifi

cation of: the institutions themselves; the knowledge necessary to repeat or

create activities;^ and already existing structural relationships. In the simul

taneous unfolding of socialization and social reprod uction the individual an d

her consciousness are shaped by society while society is unintentionally and

intentionally shaped by the individual and her consciousness. In order to

deal with the dialectical relationships between individual and society, the

constant becoming of both, one must really deal with material continuityand the dialectics of practice a nd struc ture, or with the process of struc tur

ation, w hereby the stru ctura l properties of any social system express them

selves through the op eration o f everyday practices a t the same time tha t

everyday practices generate an d reproduce the micro- and macro-level struc

tural properties of the social system in question.

Giddens, Bourdieu, Bhaskar, and several others associated with the struc

turation school are in various ways sensitive to the fact that all practices, all

social activities, take the form of concrete interaction s in time-space. Yet,

* This paper was written while the author was receiving research support from the

U.S. National Science Foundation.



nobody identifiable with the structuration perspective really has succeeded

in conceptualizing the means by which the everyday shaping and repro

duction of self and society, of individua l and institution, come to be ex

pre ssed as specific structure-influenced and structure-influencing practices

occurring at determinate locations in time and space, or as time-space detailed situ

ations that at one and the same time are rooted in past time-space detailed

situations and serve as the potential roots of future time-space detailed situ

ations. They all fail to inform us precisely how the everyday functioning and

reproduction of particular cultural, economic, and political institutions intime and space are continuously bound up with the temporally and spatially

specific actions, knowledge build-up, and biographies of partic ular individ

uals. Or, they do not capture or fully account for the material continuity

and u nbrok en time-space flow of the structu ration process.

It has been argued elsewhere that it is possible to conceptually augment

the theory o f structuration and to overcome its just-named limitations by

integrating it with the discipline-transcending language o f Torsten Hagers-

trand’s time-geography.^ Such an augmentation rests on the concepts of

“p ath” and “project,” the two basic building blocks of the time-geographic

language. A ccording to the pat h concept, eac h of the actions and events

consecutively making up the existence of an individ ual has both temp oral

and spatia l attributes. Conseque ntly, the biogra phy of a person is ever on themove with her and can be conceptualized and diagrammed at daily or

lengthier scales of observation as an uninterrupted, continuous path through

time-space subject to various types of constraints. (The “biographies” of

other living creatures, natural phenomena, and man-made objects also can

be co nc ep tual ized an d di ag ra m m ed in the sam e m an ne r.) In tim e-

geograph ic terms a pro ject consists of the entire series of simple or complex

tasks necessary to the completion of any intention-insp ired or goal-oriented

be ha vior . Ea ch of the se qu en tia l tas ks in a pr oj ec t is syn onym ous wi th the

formation o f “ac tivity bundles,” or with the convergenc e in time and space

of the unbroken paths being traced ou t either by two or more people, or by

one or more persons and one or more physically tangible inputs or resources,

such as buildings, furniture, machinery, and raw materials.

The integration of time-geography with the theory of structuration com

mences with the recognition tha t each of society’s comp onent institutions

does not exist apart from the everyday and longer-term production, con

sumption, or othe r projects for which it is responsible. If all formal and

informal institutions are viewed in these terms, it then may be asserted that

the detailed situations and material continuity o f structuration, and thereby o f social

reproduction and individual socialization, are perpetually spelled out by the inter-

section of part icular individual paths with particular institutional projects occurring at

specific temporal and spatial locations.

When elaborated upon, the fundamental assertion underlying the integra

46 Alla n Pred

tion of time-geography and the theory of structuration enables a reinterpre

tation of many of the grand conceptual categories and themes of both social

theory and the separate social sciences. The integration allows such cate

gories and themes to be tied down to determinate situations as well as the

more general dialectics of practice and stru cture, an d thus permits connec

tions to be drawn between the time-space flow of concrete, localized micro

level interactions and macro-level processes and structural features.’ Here,

the reinterpretive possibilities stemming from the marriage of time-

geography and structuration theory will be illustrated by a consideration of

the “sense of place” theme pursued by many h uman geographers, Raymond

WiUiams’ “struc ture of feehng” concept, a nd some links between the two.

Since sense of place and s tructu re of feeling are associated in various ways

with individual experience and mental activity, it is only appropriate to

pr efa ce an y clo ser ex am in at io n of them wi th som e ex ceed ing ly br ie f ob se rva

tions on the way in which time-geography allows individual-level continuity

within the structuration process to be viewed. (Length limitations make any

comment upon institutional-level continuity impractical here. However, it

should be kept in mind that insofar as individual socialization and institu

tional reprod uction are dialec tically intertwined in the process of struc tur

ation, each one becoming the other, the material continuity and time-space

flow of the two cannot be rent asunder.)

Structuration and Place 47

IN D IV ID U A L -L E V E L CO N T IN U IT Y IN T H E

S T R U C T U R A T I O N P R O C E SS

At the ind ividual level continuity arises in the process of structu ration be

cause as a person traces out her unbroken path she does not either encounter

separate institutional projects, or “independently” undertake separate pro

je ct s ou tsi de of an in sti tu tio na l co nt ex t, in a di sjo in ted or un co nn ec ted

manner. Instead, her incessant progress through time-space from project to

projec t, fro m on e de ta ile d he re an d now to an ot he r, is ch ar ac te riz ed by a

complex “external-internal” dialectic, by a repeated dialectical interplay

be tw ee n he r co rp orea l ac tio ns an d he r m en ta l ac tiv iti es an d in tent ions ,

be tw ee n w ha t she does an d w ha t she kno ws an d th ink s. In ra th e r ov er

simplified and abbreviated terms, external physical action—or any steering

of an ind ividua l’s pat h thro ugh specific tempora l and spa tial locations in

order to either participate in, or get to and from, a project—cannot occur

without resulting in internal mental activity because it always involves con

frontation with environmental stimuli, personal contacts, influences, infor

mation in general, or emotions and feelings that otherwise would not have

been ex pe rie nced . Ye t, the ad di tion of ex te rn al phys ica l ac tio ns to an in di

vidual’s path prerequires internal men tal activity—the formation o f inten-



48 Alla n Pred

tions or unconscious goals, the making of choices between existing project

alternatives th at do not violate basic time-geographic constraints®— mental

activity th at is itself intricately based on the experience and knowledge

acquired by that individual through previous physical participation in tem

po ra lly an d sp at ia lly spec ific pro jec ts. It is to be rec ogniz ed th at ev en wh en a

pe rso n ph ys ica lly en te rs a projec t th at she has def ine d for he rse lf o ut sid e the

workings of any institution, she canno t escape the men tal imp rint left by the

pre vio us in ter sect ion of he r pat h wi th pa rt ic ul ar in sti tu tion al pro jec ts. Fo r,

wheth er it is a ma tter of the satisfaction of either non-physiological or

physi olo gic al “w an ts an d ne ed s,” th ere ar e alw ays cu ltur al ly ar b it ra ry

mental dispositions or elements of practical knowledge associated with the

creation and definition of “independent” projects that only can be acquired

via socialization, or pat h intersections with institution al projects.̂

Individual-level co ntinuity in the process of structura tion also is linkable

to another dialectical relationship much akin to the external-internal dialec

tic. This “life path-daily path” dialectic is central to the reproduction of

class and involves the interplay between long-term commitment and every

day p ractice ; between, on the one ha nd, an in dividu al’s previous suc

cession of long-term in stitutional roles and resultant reco rd of everyday

projec t pa rt ic ip at io n an d, on the ot he r ha nd , th e ob jec tiv e lo ng -te rm op

po rtu ni tie s op en to he r. Th ro ug h th e op er at io n of this dia lec tic th e lo ng term institutional roles that an adult person may reahstically choose among

at any po int are, in whole or in part, both walled off and thrown o pen by

the manner in which her previous institutional role commitrhents have

affected, and been affected by, certain o f her specific daily paths. More

exactly, when a person’s life path, or biography, becomes associated with a

given family role or committed to a specialized role within some other

institution she must as a consequence intermittently steer her daily path to

activity bundles belonging to specific routine or nonroutine projects. But,

when participating in those activity bundles at precise geographic locations

and more or less fixed temporal locations, and when thus having her participation

in other types o f activity bundles and projects constrained,^ the individual daily

undergoes experiences, interacts with other people, acquires or reinforces

competencies, and encounters symbolically laden inanimate objects, ideas,

and information stimuli in general that otherwise would not have come her

way in exactly the same form. These daily-path experiences, interactions,

and encounters occasionally result in the intentional or unintentional dis

covery of additio nal or alte rnative lo ng-term institutio nal role possibilities

that, on the basis of her life history and co mpetition from oth er individuals,

she may or may no t have a realistic chance of entering into. Moreover, these

daily-path experiences, interactions, and encounters help her to define and

redefine herself, to renew and initiate strengths and weaknesses, to form

intentions, and to crystallize the consciously or unconsciously motivated


choices she subsequently makes about which other long-term institutional

roles, if any, to seek. Of course, when new long-term institutional role

choices are willingly or grudgingly opted for, new activity bundles intermit

tently must be incorporated into the ind ividual’s daily path and new experi

ences, interactions, and encounters ensue.

SENSE OF PLACE

Durin g the last decade or so the theme of “sense of place ” has assumed a

posit ion of ce nt ra l im po rta nc e am on g tho se hu m an ge og raph er s iden tif ied

with the “new humanistic geography.” Heavily influenced by the major

works of phenome nology and existentialism, new humanistic geograph ers

have portray ed “ sense of place” in varying, bu t highly overlapping and

interrelated, terms and concepts. For them, place is never merely an object.®

It is always an o bject for a subject. It is seen, for each individual, as a center

of meanings, intention s, or felt values; a focus of emotional or sentime ntal

atta ch m ent ; a locality of felt significance.

Tuan, Relph, and others emphasize that space and physical features are

mobilized and transformed into place through human residence and involve

ment in local activities and routines; through familiarity and the accumula

tion of memories; thro ugh the bestowal of mean ing by images, ideas, and

symbols; through th e “a ctua l” experience of meaningful or moving events

and the establishme nt of individua l or comm unal identity, security, and

concern.^® Tuan, in particular, has distinguished between those instances in

which place becomes known and sensed by purely visual means, and those in

which place becomes known and sensed via prolonged contact and experi

ence. In the former instances sense of place is acquired from outside know

ledge; from seeing objects of “high im ageab ility” th at one has been

“tra ined ” to discern as either beau tiful, or of public symbolic significance,

tangibly and commandingly expressing “communal” life, aspirations, needs,

and values.^^ In the la tter instances sense of place results from inside, inti

mate knowledge: from the establishment of “fields of care, networks of inter

pe rso na l concern, in a phys ica l se tt in g; ” from em ot io na l ties to the m ater ia lenvironment and a conscious awareness of that environment’s “identity and

spatial lim it;” from long a nd close association intensified “ throug h the senses

of hearing, smell, taste, and to uch ;” from the traditional recu rrence of “pa

geants, and solemn and jovial festivities” or rivalries with other settlements;

from “a total experience of milieu”— “the feel of grass on bare feet, the

smells and sounds of various seasons, the places and times I rrteet friends on

walks, the daily ebb an d flow of milking time, meals, reading an d thinking,

sleeping, and w aking.” ^^ Althoug h Tu an is not entirely consistent in separa

ting the two, he suggests tha t a public-symbolic sense of place is most ap t to

Î



50 Alla n Pred

arise in connection with large r areal u nits— the city or region of one’s re

sidence, the na tion state— while a field-of-care sense of place is most apt to

emerge in connection w ith smaller areal units— the corner of a room, or the

urba n street, farm, or rur al village of one’s residence.

Relph instead prefers to stress the distinction between an authentic and

inauth entic sense of place : “An a uthen tic sense of place is above all tha t of

be ing ins ide an d be long ing to your place both as an individual and as a

member o f the comm unity and to know this without reflecting upon it,”

whereas “ an ina uthe ntic at titude to place is essentially no sense of place, for

it involves no awareness of the deep and symbolic significance of places and

no appreciation of their identities.” Thus, an authentic sense of place is

largely unselfconscious, an array of deeply dissolved meanings, built u pon

those attributes of objects, settings, events, and fu ndam ental pa rticulars o f

everyday practice and life that become taken for granted, no longer regard

ed as what is, but as what ought to be.

No t su rpr isi ng ly , the se an d sim ila r po rt ra ya ls of sense of pla ce ha ve come

under heavy attack. In addition to its being methodologically eclectic and

frequently cast in o bscuran tist terms, most of the literature on sense of place

suffers from either a total neglect or inadequate treatment and conceptual

ization of context and con textual processes. Historical context, social con

text, and biographical context do not serve as theoretical underpinnings.

They are either ignored or vaguely and insufficiently dealt with. The im pre ssio n is all too oft en convey ed th at sens e of pla ce is the pr od uc t of au to n

omous mind freely interpreting the world of experience—of memories,

meanings, and attachments flowing from independent actions inspired by

indep ende nt intentions. Thus, sense of place is too frequently seen as a

free-floating phenomenon, in no way influenced either by historically specific

po we r re la tio ns hips th a t en ab le som e to im po se up on othe rs th ei r vie w of the

natural and acceptable, or by social and economic constraints on action and

thereby th ou gh t.A ltho ug h the new humanist geographers wri ting on sense

of place sometimes make reference to society, to intersubjective comm unica

tion and consensus of meaning, to social position, and to social conditioning,

those terms are only employed as mere backdrops to individual experience

and the idealism and voluntarism of their users remains poorly disguised, ifdisguised at all. With few real exceptions, the nebulous societies they fleet-

ingly refer to are somehow devoid o f both specific rule-providing, a ctivity-

organizing institutions and structural relations among collectivities,

individuals, and institutions. Moreover, the experiences portrayed as un

derlying the emergence of sense of place canno t occur in a biographical

vacuum . An in dividu al’s sense of place can not com e into being on its own,

divorced from he r developm ent of consciousness and ideology in general, or

unaffected by predispositions deeply and complexly embedded in her pre

vious history of langua ge acquisition, a nd o ther forms of code absorption

Î Structuration and Place 51

and perceptual conditioning. Its origins also cannot be separated from her

pa st soc ial in te ra ct io n an d soc ia liz at ion in the co nc re te sit ua tio ns prov ided

by fam ily , school , wo rkp lace , an d ot he r in sti tu tio ns . In fac t, if se nse of pla ce

is not to be but another reified category, referring to emanations of thought

or passive reflections existing purely on their own, it should be reinterpreted

in terms of the time-space specific everyday practices by which it becomes

p ar t of bi og ra ph y al on g w ith ot he r ele me nts of con scious nes s de ve lo pm en t

and socialization, and in terms of the social and economic structu ral prop er

ties that are expressed through, and reproduced by, those very same prac

tices. In short, sense of place needs to be viewed anew , thro ugh the

integrated prism of time-geography and the theory of structuration, as but

another by-product of the continuous dialectical becoming of individual and

society, of practice and structure, in historically specific situations.

To begin with, if sense of place is seen as one with symbolic an d e motional

meanings, memories, and attachments to people and things, and, more gen

erally, experiences that are rooted in day-to-day living and doing, and in

routine activities, or practices and m ovement— of if place, person and activ

i ty are seen as a “u n i t y , — then it must be acknowledged that individual

involvement in the activities in question is not somehow disembodied (as the

literature frequently makes it seem). Instead, any activity participation un

derlying a pe rson’s continuou s constitution a nd re constitution of sense of

plac e on ly ca n oc cu r ei th er via he r ph ys ica lly br in gi ng he r da ily pa th in totemporal an d spatial conjunction with the “ activity bundle(s)” of an institu

tionally defined project—an d thus by her contributio n to social

reproduction—or by her physical undertaking of an “ind ependen dy”

defined project whose requisite menta l predispositions or elements of prac ti

cal knowledge depend upon her previous socialization, or path intersections

with temporarily and spatially specific institutional projects. Whichever the

case, no single activity-p articipa tion ro ot of sense of place is sunk in splendid

isolation, but intertwined with other activity-participation roots; for, as pre

viously outlined, each external physical action, each path-project intersec

tion, tha t goes into the un broke n spinning out of biograph y in time-space is

the consequence of, and a contributor to, an external-internal dialectic and

its closely related life path-daily path dialectic.Since internal experience of place and external participation in world and

society are dialectically fused in the m anne r suggested, it follows that joint

par ti ci pa tion an d soc ial in te ra ct io n in som e in st itu tion al projec ts will im par t

features—similar or identical meanings and memories associated with the

sound of a particu lar factory whistle, the sight of a parti cula r school, the

smell of freshly cut hay in a p artic ular field—which a re essentially common

with those making up the sense of place of others. Yet, at th e same time, it is

also true th at each in divid ual’s sense of place will be unique to a certain

extent. Person-to-person variations in sense-of-place attributes among re-



52 Alla n Pred

sidents of the same locale or area are inescapab le since hum an physical

indivisibility, plus the impossibility of two objects occupying the same space

at the same time, by definition precludes the accumulated project-

pa rt ic ip at io n elem en ts of an y tw o in di vi du al pa th s fro m be ing id en tic al in

their time-space details. Or, within a given area over a given period of time,

each person’s physically observable daily paths and life path, or biographical

conta ct with the countless detailed alterna tives of objective reahty, are unre-

pe at ab ly an d un iq ue ly ar ra ye d, an d th er eb y ea ch pe rso n’s co ns tit ut ion of

consciousness, includ ing sense of place, is unique ly accu mulated.^^While all the components of everyday ennui and euphoria, daily drudgery

and drama, going into sense of place cannot be duphcated from person-to-

pe rso n, th e reco gn iti on of ce rt ai n sym bo ls an d ot he r co mm on features of

consciousness are to a considerable degree bound up with the reproduction

of power or class relationships that acc ompanie s the enactm ent of institu

tional projects, or the social reproduction that occurs within the unbroken

time-space flow of the structu ration process. Insofar as they exist, person-to-

pe rso n sim ila rit ie s in sen se-o f-p lac e am on g the in ha bi ta nt s of a m od er n

urban environment are not likely often to be random in origin, or the result

of experiences being shared by people of dissimilar backgrou nd bec ause their

pa th s ha ve un in te nt io na lly or co in cide ntal ly crossed in the cours e of pu r

suing completely unrelated projects. They are considerably more likely to bethe outcome o f occupying p retty mu ch the same social space, the same general

place in society, and some of the shared hab itual interactions with people and

objects that almost inevitably follow. Such shared interactions are com

monp lace since one’s place in the society of a given place means one’s daily

pa th , or on e’s p ot en ti al reac h in tim e-s pa ce , is he m me d in or th row n op en in

par t by a res ide nce wh ich is sim ila r in qu al ity an d lo ca tio n to the res ide nc e

of some other persons of the same social stratum , an d in pa rt by the sexual

division of labor one has been socialized to acc ept an d the specific types of

institutional projects and project roles that dominate one’s life as well as the

lives of some other peo ple belonging to the same g roup or class in the same

pla ce . W ith respe ct to res ide nce, it also shou ld be rec ogniz ed th at th e na tu re

of similarities in sense of place among members of the same localized social

group or class will be much influenced by whether their homes and neigh

bo rh oo d ar e wil lin gly or unwi lli ng ly chose n an d ar e of th ei r ow n desig n or

pas sed al on g from pre vio us oc cu pa nt s o f an ot her soc ial standing .^®

More importantly, it is to be understood that dominant institutional pro

je ct s gr ea tly afl'ect the sim ila rit y of d ai ly pa th s, an d th er eb y th e sim ila rit y of

internal experience and sense-of-place, because their underpinning explicit

or implicit rules require that participating individuals expend their labor

po we r or in som e ot he r wa y en ga ge the ms elv es in ac tiv ity in a given m an ne r,

at a given time and place, rather than doing something else, somewhere else,

during the same time period. (Participation in dominant institutional pro-


je ct s is syn onym ous w ith th e re pr od uc tion of soc ial st ru ct ur al re la tio ns hips

since it involves the placement of certain individuals and groups of individ

uals in a subservient or dependent and conflict-laden relationship with those

other power-wielding individuals and groups who define the projects in

question and w ho either own, or have jurisdiction over, whatever material or

wage-paying resources are necessary to project completion.) Furthermore,

dominant institutional projects may have a marked impact on the daily

pa th s of pa rt ic ip at in g in divi du al s w ith sim ila r or id en tic al role s becaus e thei r

scheduling precedence and specific time-space demands place a “coupling”constraint on both the other institutional projects and individually defined

extra-institutional projects that may antecede and follow them.^®

In ord er to fully appreciate the continuo us becomin g of sense-of-place as a

by -p ro du ct of th e in di vi du al ’s a ct ive pa rt ic ip at io n in th e tim e-s pa ce flow of

the structur ation process, it also should be realized that th e place—the

humanly modified landscape or locality—being sensed is not something

frozen, but also a continuously becom ing by-prod uct of individu al (and

collective) active partic ipatio n in the time-space flow of the structu ration

process.^® All the bu ild ings , road s, field s, an d ot he r m an -m ad e ob jec ts, an d

all of their associated activities, which together construct, maintain, and

sculpture place by taking place, or by appropriating and transforming space

and n ature , are the consequence of specific goals and in tentions based onideology (or the values and ideas chara cterisdc of an individual, group , or

class). Yet, ideology a t any level is the pro duc t of living in place(s), of the

br in gi ng of pa rt ic ul ar pa th s in to co nj un ct ion wi th pa rt ic ul ar in sti tu tion al

pro jec ts oc cu rri ng at spec ific te m po ra l an d sp at ia l loc ations .^^ T h a t the

continuous becoming of place and ideology are interwoven with one a nother

and w ith the unfolding process of structu ration , with the always ongoing

dialectics of practice an d structure , is perhaps best partly cap tured by con

sidering the links between, on the one hand, both those construction and

pr od uc tion pro jec ts wh ich yie ld an d reshap e the vis ible ar ti fact s of p lace an d

those institutional projects responsible for what takes place from day to day,

and, on th e other han d, the individual-leve l dialectics of those who hold the

po we r or au th or ity necessa ry to de fin e suc h proje cts .

The specific project definitions and loose, flexible, or rigid disciplinary

rules associated with every institutional project which contributes to what is

scene as place and what takes places do not appear, fully articulated, out of

nothingness. Instead, those definitions and rules are produced and repro

duced as a consequence of the goals established or decisions reached (locally

or nonlocally) by powe r-holding individuals or coalitions of individuals. In

turn, the informational inputs, interpretative schema, values, biases, antici

pa tio ns , an d in te rn al iz ed gr ou p in ter est s un de rlyi ng th e fo rm ul at ion of

pr oj ec t- or ru le -d et er m in in g goa ls an d dec isio ns ar e alwa ys un m ec ha ni st i-

cally derived from the earlier path and project-participation record of the



goal-setters and decision-makers themselves, or from the external-internal

and life path-daily path dialectics of the business executives, government

bu re au cr ats , wo rk pla ce sup ervi sors , pa rents , or ot he r ind ivi du als inv olve d.

Put otherwise, the project-defining, or place-creating, goals and decisions

arrived at by individuals holding institutional positions of varying import

ance can not be severed from the aw areness of local and non local resources

and opportunities those people have built up through their limited acquisi

tion of imperfect information; from the way in w hich they reflectively or

unselfconsciously interpret and react to political, economic, and other oc

currences outside the institution; from any anticipation they may hold of

rewards or penalties; and from their absorption or rejection of prevaiUng

group or cu ltura l values. And, all of these things, in turn, can not be divorced

from the uniquely ac cumulated path histories of those same individuals, or

the temporal and spatial details of their own past involvement in the dialec

tical process of structuration. Moreover, it is contendable that the project- or

rule-determining goals and decisions of institutional power holders—or their

contributions to the becom ing of place—are jointly determined, or over

determined, in another way by the time-space flow of the structuration

process. Fo r, it is ofte n so th at the goals an d deci sions are no t me rel y roo ted

in the past details of socialization, and ther eby stru ctura tion, b ut also evoked

or forced by a confrontation with the micro- or macro-level structural con

flicts or contradictions of an historically specific set of circumstances—withlocal or more widely based conflicts or contradictions that are themselves

inseparable from the dialectics of practice and structure.

54 Alla n Pred

STRU CTU RE O F FEELIN G

Since first discussing the term at length some two decades ago in The Long

Revolution, Raymond Williams has repeatedly written on the nature and

specific historical expression of “stru cture of feeling.

As initially presented, this thought-provoking and original concept was

addressed to what Williams defined as the theory of culture—“ the study ofrelationships betwee n elements in a whole way of life”—and the analysis of

culture, or “the attempt to discover the nature of the [total or general]

organization which is the complex of these relationships.” According to

Williams, the com plex genera l organiz ation o f a whole way of life only can

be kno wn in full thr ou gh ac tua l “li vin g ex pe rie nce,” for it is a “ str uc tu re of

feeling,” a “felt sense of the quality of life at a partic ular place a nd tim e; a

sense of the ways in which the particular activities” combine “into a way of

thinking and living.” Williams also refers to any past or present structure of

feeling as a not easily situated common element which remains after allow

ing for individual var iations of experience. I t is, he says, the result of inti

mate knowing, “a particular sense of life,” a “distinct sense of a particular

and native style,” “a p articular com munity of experience hardly needing

expression.” Although in one sense structure of feehng “is the culture of the

pe rio d,” “ the pa rti cu la r livi ng res ult of all the eleme nts in the gen era l or

ganization;” and although “it is a very deep and very wide possession, in all

actual communities, precisely because it is on it that communication de

pe nd s; ” it is b y no me ans “ possessed in the sam e way by the man y ind ivi d

uals in . . . [any given] community.” Differences are especially evident

amo ng generations, observes Williams, because stru cture o f feeling does not

appear to be learned in any formal sense. One generation, he contends, may

impa rt behavioral and attitudinal elements of culture to its successor

through formal and informal training, “but the new generation will have its

own structu re of feeling, which will not appe ar to have com e Trom’ any

where.” More precisely: “the new generation responds in its own ways to

the unique world it is inheriting, taking up many continuities, that can be

traced, and reproducing many aspects of the organization, which can be

separately described, yet feeling its whole life in certain ways differently, and

shaping its creative response into a new s tructur e of feeling.”^^

In later writings Williams has further emphasized the generational aspect

of structure of feehng and stressed its quality as an historically distinct and

widely felt social experience, as opposed to a purely “personal” experience,which is always “still in process” and has its analytically identifiable “emer

gent, connecting, and dominant characteristics.” Thus, the “relations

bet we en this qu al ity an d the ot he r spec ifyin g his tor ica l ma rks of cha ng ing

institutions, formations, and beliefs, and beyond these the changing social

and economic relations between and within classes, are again an open ques

tion: that is to say, a set of specific historical questions.” Or, depending upon

historical circumstances, structure of feeling may or m ay not vary between

or within classes. Moreover, it is noted, whether emerging among a young

genera tion or yet evolving amo ng older generations, s tructu re of feeling must

be dis ting uished fro m the more for ma l con cept s of “w orl d-view” or “ ideol

ogy,” since it is far from being confined to “formally held and systematic

belie fs.” It ins tea d also enco mp asses “cha racte ris tic elements of imp ulse ,restra int, an d ton e; specifically affective elements of consciousness and re

lationships: not feeling against thought, but thought as felt and feeling as

thought: practical consciousness of a present kind” wherein meanings and

values are actively lived and felt in an “interrelating continuity.

In some ways W illiam’s structu re of feeling is conceptually su perior to

most versions of sense of place. Structure of feeling more explicitly acknowl

edges the impact of social and historical context on individual experience. I t

is not depicted as the produ ct of autonomous mind. It is not set totally apart

from the biographical growth and alteration of consciousness and ideology in




general. It is viewed as always becoming and inseparable from the total

relational complex of national or local culture. All the same, Williams’

structu re of feeling is not w ithout its problematic aspects.

As presented by Wilhams, the feeling or ambiance o f being situated in a

pa rt ic ul ar ge ne ra tion (and pe rh ap s class) at a pa rt ic ul ar tim e, or the co m

munity of experience t hat is structure of feeling, is ground ed in active living

and particular activities. However, when Wilhams translates his powerful

and very general theoretical concept into example it is usually rather diffi

cult to discern the bridge from particular individual and institutional prac

tices to structu re of feeling and its becoming. T oo often, structures of feehng

are m ade visible while actual living and practices a re left invisible. This is so,

for example; when we are told that in England between 1660 and 1690 “two

structures of feeling (amon g the defeated Pur itans an d in the restored Court)

can be readily distinguished;” and when comments are made upon “that

structure of feeling which was beginning to form, from Goldsm ith to the

poe ts of the Rom an tic mo ve me nt , an d wh ich is pa rt ic ul ar ly vis ible in

C l a r e . I n The Country and the City, much is made of the fact that the

structures of feeling with respect to “N atur e” conveyed over several cen

turies by English writers have been greatly influenced by the practices not

directly experienced by the vast majority o f them, by th eir lack of personal

experience of agricultural labo r. In y et other instances some atten tion is

given to institutional changes or the growth of particular cultural institutions

without really dealing with the concrete everyday practices associated with

those institutions. Suc h is the case when the structure of feeling underly ing

the British novels of the 1840s is revealingly sketched, or when the structure

of feeling of “ the eme rgent pro ductive class” of Great Britain in the 1960s is

insightfully capture d an d analyzed.^®

How then is one to concep tually specify the fusion of concrete practices

and the becom ing of structure o f feeling? Since the real problem is that of

simultaneously accounting for determinate situations and individual and

collective social becoming, an inte grated usage of time-geog raphy an d the

theory of structuration would again ap pear ap propriate.

In time-g eographic terms an ind ividual acq uires a structure of feeling

pa rt ly by ha ving he r pa th exp ose d to new s of par ti cu la r po lit ical- hi sto ric alevents by word-of-mouth, the printed word, or the m odern media; partly by

the everyda y intersection of her pa th with time-space specific institutional

proje ct s wh ic h also re qu ir e bo th the pa th in te rse ct ion s of o th er pe rso ns (som e

of whom be long to the same generation or class) and com mon intera ction

with objects (e.g., buildings, roadways, furnitu re, and pieces of mac hinery or

equip ment) ; and partly by the constraints a nd possibilities imposed on he r

other forms of project participation, and thereby knowing, by fixed commit

ments to dominant ins t itut ional p ro je c ts .P u t otherwise, i t is the spe

cificness of path -based commo n exposures, projects, and inte ractions (the

56 All an Pred Structuration and Place 57

name of a specific politician or popular song, the contours of a specific make

of car, the packaging of a specific good, the details of a specific implement)

tha t presum ably act as a catalyst of meaning, evoking the presence of a

structu re of feeling by conjuring up from one symbol the presence o f an

entire symbolic system.

The temporally and spatially specific institutional projects providing the

pr im ar y-ex pe rien ce in gred ient s of st ru ct ur e of fee ling ar e, of cours e, no t

pa rt ic ip at ed in a ra nd om un re la te d m an ne r. H er e too , it is dif ficult to co n

ceive of such individual activity involvem ent, or physical comm itmen t to theworkings of society, occurring w ithout its being influenced by, and c ontrib

uting to, a person’s external-internal and life path-daily path dialectics. In

like ma nner, to the extent t ha t structure of feeling is colored by exposure to

news or information in conjunction with an “independently” defined pro

je ct , such as read in g a giv en ma ga zine or w atch in g a given televi sion pr og

ram, it is depe nden t upon the m ental predispositions or elements of practical

knowledge requisite to the definition of such projects, and the reby upon the

individual’s previous socialization (and consequent contributions to the

social reproduction o f structu ral relationships) via time-space specific path-

pr ojec t int ers ec tio ns. In o th er wo rds , the be co mi ng of st ru ct ur e of fee ling is

yet anothe r by-product of individual and collective participation in the

ceaseless time-space flow of the structuration process in historically specific

situations.^®

While W illiams is clear in his depiction o f structure of feehng as a place-

specific phenomenon, he is not conceptually specific in his treatment of

pla ce . Con ce ptua lly , st ru ct ur e of fee ling is at lea st im pl ici tly bo un d to loc al

and regional as well as national culture. But, in his examples Williams

almost invaria bly confines himself to structure o f feeling at the na tional level.

Even when pointing to the memories of “the delights of corner-shops, gas

lamps, horsecabs, trams, [an d] piestalls,” that are pa rt of the structure of

feeling of English working-class members of a particular generation, he does

not distinguish one specific urban working-class community from another.^®

Williams in effect thereby equates place with nation and ignores place as

locality, or as a locally circumscribed area which is both what is scene as

pla ce an d w ha t tak es p l a c e .T h u s , an im por ta nt co nn ec tio n be tw ee n pla ceand structu re o f feeling is missed.

Wha tever the influence of national or other nonlocal relations and com

po ne nt s, w ha te ve r the im pa ct of a wi de sp read mo de of pr od uc tion or

homogenizing mass media, the “particular activities” giving rise to structure

of feeling are always enacted in a specific locality, or place— a condition

which imparts a local dimension, or quality, to each generational expression

of it. Those activities, at the same time, are also part of the becoming of the

specific place since, as earlier suggested, place continuously becomes, along

with the ideology it is produced and maintained by and produces and main



tains, through the active partic ipation of people in the unbroken time-space

flow of the structurat ion process. Tha t is, whe ther or not stru cture o f feeling

contribute s to the definition and rules of institution al projects, its becoming,

like the becoming of sense of place, is inseparable from the becoming of

pla ce , fro m th e un fo ld ing dia lec tic s of pr ac ti ce an d st ru ct ur e in pla ce . In

fact, it may be conte nded tha t if structu re of feeling is a genera tion- and

class-centered array of meanings and feelings equivalent to a “felt sense of

the quality of a life at a pa rticular place {locality] and time,” then it corre

sponds to the comm on m eaning and feehng e lements of sense of place held

by som e of tho se pe op le o f th e sam e ge ne ra tion an d class res id ing in th e sam e

place. Fo r, ju st as som e of th e co m po ne nt s of st ru ct ur e of fee ling will va ry

from place to place, so will the activity- and interaction-based quality of the

comm on me aning a nd feeling elements of sense of place result in their vary

ing from generation to generation within the same place (except perhaps

where the place in question is characterized by extreme institutional stability

and isolation from other locahties). Presumably, not even Williams himself

would ob ject to such a conflation o f structu re of feeling and sense of place;

for, in occasionally speaking of “sense of city” , “sense of setdem ent” , and his

own “attachment to the place, the landscape” which was the Black Moun

tain village of his birth, he employs terms th at m uch resemble those used for

structure of feeling.

58 All an Pred

S E N SE O F P L A CE A ND S T RU CT U R E O F F E E L IN G :

PAST AND PRESENT

The reinterp retatio n of sense of place and structure o f feeling presented here

does not represent much more than a scaffolding from which to build specific

analyses. Th e integration of time-geography and the theory of structuration,

for whatever reinterpretative conceptual purposes, cannot provide a model

which plum bs the depth s of all relevant situations in all times and places.

W hat the w edding of time-geography and structuration theory does provide,

with respect to any reinterpreted grand conceptual category or theme, is a

general framework for analyzing the interplay of constitution, transformation and practice within the context of particular historical situations.

According to the argument made here, the attributes and transformation

of the feelings, meanings, an d mem ories that make up sense of place or

structu re of feeling— althoug h definitionally n ot fully accessible to the his

torical or geographical outsider because based in direct activity participation

and experience— should be indirectly recoverable in pa rt from the recons

truction of some of the daily paths, an d thereby common exposures and

pro jec ts, ch ar ac te ri sti c of th e indivi du al s be long ing to a giv en gr ou p or

genera tion at a given place and time. M oreover, since the conte nt of a

pa rt ic ul ar sense of plac e or st ru ct ur e of fee hng is pr es um ab ly pa rt ly shap ed

by the ac tivi ty -p ar ti ci pa tio n co ns tra in ts an d pos sib ilit ies felt in th e da ily web

of interaction s with othe r people and objects, it should be especially imp ort

an t to identify the role of stable or changing d omin ant institu tional projects,

and their underlying power relationships, in structuring any reconstructed

pa th s. W he re ve r pos sib le, of cou rse , an y at te m pt to rec ov er th e be co m ing of

sense of place or structu re o f feeling and its finks to the struc turatio n process

should be amplified with either oral history or a very cautious employment

of what T hrift has called “the diverse literature of ‘rememb ering’ [and]

‘how things were’”—diaries, autobiographies, travel accounts, and general

fiction. (Considerable caution is called for since there are no established

ph en om en ol og ical or o th er m etho ds fo r in te rp re ting th e ex per ien ce s th at

accumulate as individuals participate in the becoming of place, and since the

open or disguised written record of personal involvem ent in place tends to

uninte ntiona lly or intentionally reflect the interests of some groups rather

than others and is further subject to distortion by self-consciousness and

self-censorship.)^^

While it is not feasible to develop a detailed, historically specific example

here, a few sketchy observations are in order.

If one is familiar with the langu age an d think ing of time-geog raphy, as

well as the theo ry of structu ration, individu al books occasionally will convey

an especially great deal abo ut some of the evolving elements o f sense of placeand structu re of feeling in a specific place over a given p eriod o f time. On e

such book is Hareven and Langenbach’s Am osk eag }^ Through the extensive

use of recorded oral histories, and the juxtap ositio n of past-evoking ph o

tographs, this volume provides considerable insight into the early twentieth-

centu ry lives and th ough t of people associated with the Amoskeag

Manufacturing Company, once the world’s largest textile producing com

ple x, em ploy ing ov er 15,0 00 indivi du al s, an d for ab ou t a ce nt ur y syno ny

mous with the city of Manchester, New H ampshire, which it founded in

1838. Accounts which include ma ny tem poral an d spatial details of daily

pa th s in ge ne ra l, an d factor y pr od uc tio n proje cts in par ti cu la r, prov ide viv id

examples of the connections between everyday practice, ongoing social

ization, a nd th e becoming of sense of place an d struc ture of feeling. Thevariety of people recounting portions of their biographical histories leave

little doub t as to the existence of significant generationa l and class variations

in bo th sense of place and stru cture of feeling. (Those interview ed in the

boo k in clud e repr es en ta tiv es of loc al m an ag em en t an d Bo sto n ow ne rsh ip , as

well as numerous workers.) It is also quite evident that similarly aged mill

operatives, or individ uals of the same genera tion a nd class, possessed some

sense-of-place and structure-of-feeling elements that varied by cultural back

ground. Despite the fact that Amoskeag penetrated almost every aspect of

worker life through its dominant production projects, company store, and




60 Alla n Pred

assortmen t of pate rnal institution al projects, complete uniformity was lack

ing for a num ber o f reasons. Most imp ortantly , the French Can adians, Poles,

Irish, Scots, Swedes, and others who migrated to mill employment did not

begin th ei r lives in M an ch es te r wi th bl an k min ds. In stea d, th ey all came

with a previously shaped consciousness, with previously existing senses of

plac e an d str uc tu res of fee lin g; an d thus they were replaced, and their

children were socialized somewhat differently, not least of all because the

division of labor within the mills had a highly prono unced ethnic skew. In a

clear manner the book’s documentation also enables us to see how macrolevel structural con ditions were instrumenta l to the calling forth of dram atic

local events— in the form of strikes, work speedup s, layoffs, firings, and mill

shutdowns—th at drastically altered daily paths and left a heavy imprint on

individual sense of place and structure of feeling.

Helias’ beautifully written Horse o f Pride is another ex ample o f a single

book wh ich enab les the rec overy of m an y o f the co nnec tio ns be tw ee n in di

vidual pa th-institutio nal project intersections and the b ecoming of sense of

plac e an d st ru ct ur e of fee ling in a spec ific plac e ov er a giv en tim e pe rio d (in

this case the Breton village of Plozevet during the pre-Second World War

decades of this cen tu ry ).E m plo yin g his own recollections and the verbal

recoundng s of his moth er and gra ndfath er, Helias provides a fine-grained

pi ct ur e of the experie nces ar isi ng bo th fro m in te gr at ed da ily pa th co m po n

ents and from the longer-term repeated participation in the details of a wide

variety of institutional projects, including those involving food prepa ration

and other household practicalities, agricultural production, education, the

local rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, organized play, and

communal weddings. Among other things, Helias succeeds in communicat

ing how the feelings, meanings, and memories that others would term sense

of place an d struc ture of feeling are rooted in the interac tion with specific

peop le an d th ing s at ve ry pre cise loc al sites an d tim es, in the in te rw ov en

bu ild in g- up of th e life pa ths, or biog raph ies , o f se lf a nd oth ers . In his de pic

tion he is also unintentionally suggestive of the common and disparate sense-

of-place and structure-of-feeling elements of “R ed” an d “ Wh ite” youths

living respectively at the “ high” and “low” ends of the village. Perhaps most

noteworthily, Helias helps us to see how national-level economic change andcentraUzed nonlocal institutions—including those associated with higher-

level educatio n, m ilitary service, and the provision of mass culture— at one

and the same time altered the becomin g of Plozevet, undermine d usage of

the Breton language, and markedly altered the micro-level content and

expectations of everyday life in tha t village, thereby produ cing gener-

ationally sh arp differences in sense of place and structure of feehng.

A few completed and in-process studies have centered on the manner in

which major transformations in the content and definition of domina nt pro

je ct s in spec ific places ha ve led to new ac tiv ity -p ar tic ip at io n, or coup lin g.

constraints and, consequently, far-reaching realignments in the daily-path

composition characteristic for large nu mbers of inhabitants. Although not

their announced or prima ry intent, such studies provide some not inconsid

erable clues as to the local transformations in sense of place an d structu re of

feeling resulting from institutional changes that are themselves inseparable

from the micro- and macro-level operation o f the structura tion process. One

such study, focussing on leading U.S. cities during the late-nineteenth cen

tury, has examine d the pa th an d project ramifications of the shift from an

artisan and small-scale workshop mode o f industrial production to a factory

and large-scale workshop mode of industrial produc tion.^* Th at work shored

up observations loosely made from other vantage points, graphically re

vealing that the tight time-space coordination demands of factory and large-

scale workshop production projects of necessity also imposed time-discipline

and activity-participation constraints upon essential family projects, thereby

contrib uting to a modification in the na ture o f the family itself. Likewise, it

was shown that the way in which projects were defined in conjunction with

factory and large-scale shop production resulted in both a clearer break

be tw ee n pr od uc tio n pro jec ts an d indi vi du al “ fr ee -ti me ” proje cts an d the

imposition of severe coupling con straints and time discipline upon the la tter

class of projects.

Another such study has dealt with the recent rapid industrialization and

growth o f Cuida d Juá rez, the Me xican city across the border from El Paso,Texas. In a similar manner, this study has revealed how the use of a young

female labor-force in the production projects of the city’s burgeoning, U.S.-

owned electronics industry has not only resulted in a complete restructuring

of the partic ipating w omen ’s daily path s; but, also in the establishment of

coupling-constraint obstacles to the enactment of basic family projects along

traditional division-of-labor lines, and a consequent fundamental change in

the na ture of family life and expe rience in place.

Another inquiry, still only in its preliminary stages, considers the

dominant-project a nd daily-path implications of the various forms of enclo

sure which swept Sweden in the second half of the eighteenth century and

early part of the nineteenth century. Th e last and m ost important of these

enclosure movements involved the consolidation of scattered land parcelsinto physically contiguous units and the local displaceme nt of housing from

com pact villages to the relative isolation of those new units. E vidently then,

as a result of this consolidation, the sense of place a nd structur e of feeling

possessed by pe op le wa s en ormo us ly al te red by a ra di ca l reorga ni za tion of

dominant agricultural projects and, perhaps even more importantly, by the

disappe aranc e or considerable modification of local social and church -

centered projects and the parallel breakdown o f shared meanings and codes

based on dre ss an d ot he r tim e- spa ce spec ific pra cti ces .^^

Finally, it can be asserted that the types of sense of place perceived to be

Structura tion and Place 61



currently prevalent in the United States and other highly industrialized

capitalist countries becomes better understood v^ihen considered in the

common light of time-geography an d the structuration process.

It is often contended that the “ cultural flatness” characteristic of modern

capitalism is synonymous with an indiscriminate nostalgia for other times

and places, the “demise of place,” and the widespread asc endance o f less

intense and more “ina uthe ntic” forms of sense of place. ®̂ R elph goes so far

as to claim that modern capitalism encourages “placelessness,” or “a

weaken ing of the identify of places to the po int where the y not only look

alike but feel alike and offer the same bland possibilities for experience.” (In

somewhat contradictory fashion he adds that at “its most profound” place

lessness “consists of a pervasive a nd perh aps irreversible alien ation from

pla ces as th e home s of m en ,” bu t als o no tes th at pla cele ssne ss me an s “ fre e

dom from place,” and contemporary environments can be “dramatic and

excinng,” an d provide “great b readth of experience.”)̂ ®

The reign of superficially felt and poorly articu lated forms of sense of place

is variously attributed to: a constantly changing environment; the loss of

“intimate co ntact” with the local physical landscape “in an age when people

seldom walk and almost never loiter;” “ the decline of meaningful cele

br at io ns . . . tin ge d wi th rel ig iou s se nt im en t an d tie d to lo ca lit ie s; ” th e

spatial mobility of people and information facilitated by the automobile an d

modern electronic communications; and, more generally, “the overridingconcern with efficiency as an end in itself” that follows from the triumph of

applied science and technocracy in large corporations, central governments,

and plann ing agencies. Less deeply develope d expressions of sense of place

are also ascribed to : the architectural standardization of suburban housing,

retail-chain establishments, and resort facilities; the “formlessness and lack

of human scale and order in places;” the shadow of uniformity cast upon

tastes and fashions by the mass media in general, and the “glib and con

trived stereotypes” of advertising in partic ular; and the individualistic and

fragmented life style led by people.^®

These and other single factors supposedly a t the foundation of the weak

sense of place prese ntly held by gre at nu mbers o f people lack coherence.

Proponents of these various factors ignore the fact that sense of place isalways a pa rt of an individu al’s ongoing de velopm ent of consciousness and

ideology, a development that is one with everyday participation in time-

space specific institutional practices, with socialization and the reproduction

and transformation of social and economic structures, with the becoming of

the sensed place. Hence , withou t necessarily underm ining any o f the above-

named factors, it can be proposed that insofar as individuals actually possess

a sense of place th at is lacking in depth, it is in very large m easure a re sult of

their concrete participation in the reproduction an d modification of local

62 All an Pre d

and macro-level social and economic structures, of the sweeping up of their

own external-internal and life path-daily path dialectics in the unbroken

time-space flow of the structuration process.

Such an in terpretation can be made somew hat more precise in the follow

ing terms, which are admittedly oversimplified and beg amplification else

where. Through the everyday and practical perpe tuation of the

accumulation process under modern capitalism the functional division and

specialization of labo r becomes ever finer; not only in corpo rations, bu t also

in government and public institutions overridden by the dom inant ideology’s

concern for efficiency and productivity. This cannot happen without thedaily paths of most people becoming highly fragme nted in th eir intersections

with the now ever more spatially and temporally compartmentalized pro

duction and consumption projects of institutions. This highly fragmented

character of day-to-day path-project intersections is frequently synonymous

with fleeting rather than prolonged contact with things and people (e.g.,

salespersons, bank tellers, delivery personnel, administrators) who are expe

rienced as thingified strangers since dealt with as interchangeable role-

holders rather than as specific thinking and feeling persons. Thus, greatly

fragmented and fleeting path-project intersections, which are not a separate

fac tor, but p art of a societyencompassing process, presumably often yield poorly

integrated meanings, memories, and feelings pertaining to place, or an atom

ized existence and predominant sense-of-place forms that are clearly distinguishable from those most typica l of the residents of farms, villages, or cities

in the past. It also would ap pear that the dilution of sense of place under

modern capitalism (and state capitalism) is frequently compounded by a

sometimes dim, sometimes keen, awareness that the institutional project defi

nitions and rules one routinely encounters do not originate locally, within

sight or reach, but in distant seats of power—a set of circumstances that also

is itself intertwin ed with the conte mpo rary accum ulation process, with the

reproduction a nd transformation of social and economic structures through

prac tic es exp ressing tho se str uc tu res.

Whatever the extent to which sense-of-place forms have changed under

modern capitalism, none of these observations should obscure the persistence

of person-to-person and intergro up va riations in some elements of sense of

plac e w ithin th e sam e loca lly ci rcum sc rib ed ar ea — bo th th e im pr in t of on e’s

plac e in soc iety an d the physi ca lly di ct at ed un ique ne ss of on e’s pat h re m ain

inescapable- Moreover, placelessness is not to be exaggerated. Regardless of

the strength of homog enizing forces, there are still imp orta nt geograph ical

differences in the beco ming of place, and the reby the becoming o f sense of

plac e (a nd st ru ct ur e of fee lin g), no t lea st o f a ll be ca us e of loc al an d reg iona l

variations in the historical sedimentation of residual, dominan t, and emer

gent forms of cu ltu re .W h ate ve r s ignificant resemblances and common

Structura tion and Plac e 63



64 All an Pred

features there may be, the possibilities for experience and becoming of con

sciousness are no more identical in San Francisco, Chicago, or Philadelphia

than they are in the farming comm unities of California’s Central Valley, the

Great Plains, or Mississippi.

A FINAL DISPLACEMENT

What, in essence, have the conceptualizations and arguments put forth in

this place me ant?An understanding of sense of place requires a sense of the place of struc

ture and the unin terrupted temporal and spa tial unfolding of structuration.

An u nderstand ing o f structure of feeling requires a feeling, an awareness,

of structure an d structu ration in place.

Areally-centered sense of place and generation- an d class-centered struc

ture of feeling are one

with the becom ing of consciousness,

bio gra ph y,

plac e,

with the material continuity of socialization and social reproduction,

the ceaseless time-space flow of the society-encompassing

structuration process,

the endless dialectical spiral of practice and structure,

in given historical circumstances

where the projects of some institutions, and not others, are dom inant.

Everyplace, everysense, everystructure

are to be scene in place, taking place,

becom ing

becom ing

becom ing

everyday

through the continuous intersection of

pa rt ic ul ar in di vid ua l pa th s wit h pa rt ic ul ar in sti tu tio na l pro jec ts

at specific temporal and spatial locations.

Alla n Pred

Departme nt o f Geography

University o f California

Berkeley, California 94720

U.S.A.


N O T E S

‘ While the list of authors wh o may b e directly or indirectly associated w ith the

theory of structuration is a lengthy one, I have the followin g set of works most particularly in mind when making my unavoidably oversimplified distillation of views: Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A

Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1967); Anthony

Giddens, Ne w Rules o f Sociological Meth od (London: Hutchinson, 1976) ; idem. Central

Problems in Social Theo ry: Action , Structure and Contradiction in Social Anal ysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979); Karel Kosik, Dialectics o f the Concrete (Boston

Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 52, 1976) ; Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of

Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Alain Touraine, The Self Production o f Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977); R aymond W il-liams, Ma rxis m and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977); Roy Bhaskar, “On the Possibihty of Social Scientific Know ledge and the Limits of Naturalism,” in

John Mepham and DavidHillel Ruben (eds.). Issues in Ma rx ist Philosophy, vol. 3, Epistemolo gy, Science, Ideology (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1979), pp. 10739; and

idem, The P ossibility of Natura lism: A Philosophical Critique o f the Contemporary Human

Sciences (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1979).^ Nigel Thrift, The Lim its to Knowledge in Social Theory: Towards a Theory of Practice

(Canberra: Department of Human Geography, Australian National University, 1979, mimeogr aphed).

^ Allan Pred, “Social Reproduction and the TimeGeogr aphy of Everyday Life,”

Geografiska Annaler, 63B (1981), pp. 522; and idem, “Power, Everyday Practice and

the Discipline of Human G eography,” in idem (ed.), Space and Time in Geography:

Essay s Dedicated to Torsten Hage rstrand (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1981), pp. 3055.

Also note Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory, op. cit., pp. 2056; and Nigel Thrift and Allan Pred, “TimeGeography : A New B eginning,” Progress in Hum an

Geography, 5 (1981), pp. 27786. A fu ll compreherision and absorption o f these concepts normally requires, among other

things, an extensive and prolonged exposure to the variety o f diagrams developed fo r their

portrayal. For further elaboration and diagrammatic representation of the concepts o f path and project see, for example: Torsten Hagerstrand, “What about People in

Regional Science?” Papers o f the Reg ional Science Asso ciation, 24 (1970), pp. 721 ; idem, “On SocioTechnical Ecology and the Study of Innovations,” Ethnologica Europaea, 1

(1974), pp. 1734; Allan Pred, “Urbanisation, Domestic Planning Problems and

Swedish Geographic Research,” Progress in Geography, 5 (1973), pp. 176; idem, “The

Impact of Technological and Institutional Innovations on Life Content: Som e Time

Geographic Observations,” Geographical Analysis, 10 (1978), pp. 34572; idem, “Of Paths and Projects: Individual Behavior and its Societal Context,” in R. Golledge

and K. Cox (eds.). Behaviora l Geography Rev isited (London: Methuen, 1982), pp. 231

55; Don Parkes and Nigel Thrift, Times, Spaces, and Places, A Chronogeographic Per-

spective (New York: Wiley, 1980); and Tommy Carlstein, Tinu Resources, Society and

Ecolog y: On the Capacity f or Hum an Interaction in Tim e and Space (London: Edward

Arnold, 1981).^ C f Nigel Thrift, “Local History: A Review Essay,” Environ ment and Plann ing A,

12 (1980), pp. 8556 2; and idem and Pred, “Time Geog raphy : A New Beginning,”

op. cit., pp. 2789.®The individual’s ability to choose among production, consumption, and other

project alternatives is always circumscribed by timegeographic, or physical, realities.

The projects that can be incorporated within an individual’s daily path are hmited



owing to simultaneity conflicts, or the individual’s indivisibility and consequent in-ability to simultaneously participate in spatially separated activities. An individual’s project choices also are constrained by the finite time resources remaining at her

disposal each day after the completion of physiologically necessary projects and any

already fixed institutional project commitments. Project choices are additionally con-strained by, among other things, the inescapable fact that all movement between

spatially separated points is time consuming to a degree which varies with the trans-portation technology at an individual’s command. (Thus, project participation is

barred if the time required to travel from the spatial location of one project to the

spatial location of another exceeds the duration o f the period separating the termina-tion of the former and the commencemen t of the latter.) For further elaboration and

graphic illustration of these and other timegeographic constraints see the sources cited in footnote 4, above. Also note Bo Lenntorp, Paths in Space Tim e E nviron ments: A

TimeGeographic Study o f Movement Possibilities o f Individuals (Lund Studies in Geog-raphy, Series B, no. 44, 1971) ; and Solveig Marten sson, On the Formation o f Biographies

in SpaceTime Environments (Lund Studies in Geography, Series B, no. 47, 1979).Since socialization occurs through participation in institutional projects inside

and outside the family, it is to be regarded as coinciding with social reproduction and

continuing throughout one’s life, rather than coming to an abrupt halt at maturity. Cf Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory, op. cit., pp. 12930; and Berger and

Luckmann, The Social Construction o f Reality, op. cit., p. 137.®Note comments on projectparticipation constraints in footnote 6, above. For a

fuller treatment of the life pathdaily path dialectic as well as the externalinternal

dialectic see Pred, “Social R eproduction and the Tim eGeography o f Everyday

Life,” op. cit.

®In traditional human geographic usage, place is seen in a more or less strictly

objective light: as a circumscribed area containing one or more specified phenomena;

as a circumscribed area or spatial unit within a hierarchy o f such interacting areas or units; or as a unique assem blage of interrelated physical facts and hum an artifacts.

10 YiFu Tuan, Topophilia: A Study o f Environmental Perception Attitudes and Values

(Englewood Cliffs: PrenticeHall, 1979); idem, “Place: An Experiential Perspective,”

Geographical Review, 65 (1975), pp. 15365; idem. Space and Place: The Perspective of

Experience (M inneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977); idem, “Space and

Place: Humanistic Perspective,” in Stephen Gale and Gunnar Olsson (eds.). Philos -

ophy in Geography (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1979), pp. 387427; E. Relph, Place and

Placelessness (London; Pion, 1976); and Anne Buttimer and David Seamon (eds.). The Human Experience of Space and Place (New Y ork : St. Mar tin’s Press, 1980).

“ Tuan cites sacred places, formal gardens, monum ents, monumental architec-ture, public squares, and the ideal city as types of public symbols that m ay elicit a

sense of place (Tu an, “Sp ace and Place: H umanistic Perspective,” op. cit., p. 412). For some reason he ignores the visual symbols projected by the mass media.

Ibid, pp. 4167, 410; Tuan, Space and Place: The Perspective o f Experience, op. cit., p. 174; and Anne Buttimer, “Hom e, Rea ch, and the Sense of Place,” in Regional

identitet och fóra ndri ng i den regionata samverkans samhd lle (Symposia Universitatis Upsa

licnsis Annum Quingentesimum Celebrantis 11, 1978), pp. 1339. Tuan more recent-ly has shifted ground some what, ch oosing to differentiate betwee n sense of place, which is confined to conscious know ledge and deliberate acts of creation, and “r oo-tedness,” a state of being “ unreflectively secure and comfortab le in a given locahty .”

See YiFu Tuan , “ Rootedness versus Sense of Place,” Landscape, 24 (1980), pp. 38.Relph, Place a nd Placelessness, op. cit., pp. 65, 82. Relph is admittedly inspired by

Martin H eidegger’s Being and Tim e (New York: Harper and Row, 1962).For comments on the methodological eclecticism and obscurantist terminology

66 All an Pred

r

of the sense of place literature se ej . Nicholas Entrikin, “Contemporary H umanism in

Geography,” Ann als o f the Association o f Am erican Geographers, 66 (1976), pp. 61532;

and David Ley, “Social Geography and Social Action,” in idem and Marwyn Sam-uels (eds.). Huma nistic Geography: Prospects and Problems (Chicago: Maaroufa Press,

1978), pp. 4157.Cf, D. Cosgrove, “Place, Land scape, and the Dialectics of Cultural Geog-

raphy,” Canadian Geographer, 22 (1978), pp. 6672; Ray Hudson, “Space, Place, and

Placelessness: Some Questions Concerning Methodology,” Progress in Hum an Geog-

raphy, 3 (1979), pp. 16973; Andrew Sayer, “Epistemology and Conceptions of People and Nature in Geography,” Geoforum, 10 (1979), pp. 1944; and David Ley, “Cultural/Humanistic Geography,” Progress in Hum an Geography, 5 (1981), pp. 249

57.Buttimer, “Home, R each, and the Sense of Place,” op. cit., p. 20; and Relph,

Place and Placelessness, op. cit., p. 44.Cf. K. J. Weintraub, The Value of the Individual: Se lf and Circumstance in Autobiog-

raphy (Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1978).

Cf. Tuan, Space and Place : T he Perspective of Experience, op. cit., p. 171.

Or, in the terminology of Parks and Thrift, dominant institutions “entrain”

project participation and social interaction which is associated with nondominant

institutions. (See Don Parkes and Nigel Thrift, “Time Spacemakers and Entrain

ment,” Transactions o f the Institute o f British Geographers, new series 4 [1979], pp. 35371 ). Also note footnote 6, above. For more on the nature of dominant projects

see Pred, “Social Reproduction and the TimeGeography o f Everyday Life,” op. cit.,

pp. 1518.This and related ideas are more fully elaborated upon in my forthcoming “Place

as Historically Contingent Process: Structuration and the TimeGeography of Becoming Places.” Some related comments are contained in John Urry, “Localities, Regions and Social Class,” Internatio nal Jou rna l o f Urban and Regional Research, 5

(1981), pp. 207225.Cosgrove somewhat similarly has observed; “Human ideas mould the land-

scape, human intentions create and maintain places, but our experience of space and

place itself moulds human idea s.” (Cosgrove, “ Place, Landsc ape, and the Dialectics

of Cultural Geography,” op. cit., p. 66.) Such a dialectic between ideology and

landscape can be traced to Vidal de la Blache’s classically integrated concepts o f genre

de vie, milieu, and civilisation. See Anne Buttimer, Society and Milieu in the French Geo-

graphic Trad ition (Chicago; Rand McNally, 1971); David Ley, “Social Geography

and the TakenforGranted World,” Transactions o f the Institute o f British Geographers,

new series 2 (1977), pp. 488512; and Derek Gregory, “Human Agency and Human

Geography,” Transactions o f the Institute o f British Geographers, new series 6 (1980), pp. 118. Also note widely differing comments on the creation of landscapes in M arwyn

S. Samuels, “The Biography of Landscape: Cause and Culpability” in D. W. M einig (ed.), The Interpretation o f Ordinary Landscapes (New York; Oxford University Press, 1979), pp. 5188; and Edward W. Soja, “The SocialSpatial Diakctic,” Ann als o f the

Association o f American Geographers, 70 (1980), pp. 20725.

Raymond Williams, The Long Revolution (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965

[revised edition, original edition published in 1961]) ;idem. Dra ma fro m Ibsen to Brecht

(London; Chatto and Windus, 1971); idem, The Country and the City (New York;

Oxford University Press, 1973); idem, Mar xism and Literature, op. cit.; and idem. Politics and Letter s : I nterviews with Ne w Left Review (London; New Left Books, 1979).

Williams, The Long Revolution, op. cit., pp. 635. Although not pursued here, one

of Williams’ leading arguemnts was that the “connexion between the popular struc


structuration and place

Documents