For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning

Abstract

This paper explores the nature of people's emotional relationships to places in order to learn about the kinds of places that are meaningful for people, the role these places play in their lives and the processes by which they develop meaning. Because such relationships have been most commonly explored through positive experiences of the residence, this research was undertaken to explore other dimensions of our relationships to places. To accomplish this, in-depth interviews were conducted with 40 participants in the New York metropolitan area. Qualitative analysis reveals the diversity and richness of people's emotional relationships to places, indicating that place meaning develops from an array of emotions and experiences, both positive and negative. Moreover, findings demonstrate the socio-political underpinnings of our emotional relationships to places, particularly the impact of gender, race, class and sexuality, suggesting a need to further incorporate the full magnitude of the human experience into the current discourse on people–place relationships.

Introduction

Place-based theories and research on sense of place, place attachment, and place identity have made a critical contribution to our understanding of our relationships to place. In articulating the roles and meanings that places have in our lives, this work has validated important aspects of the human experience (Altman & Low, 1992). However, until quite recently, much of the empirical research has focused specifically on our relationships to residential settings, and on positive experiences of this setting (Manzo, 2003). Typically, rootedness to a particular place or locale has been considered a valued goal. Recent research, notably Gustafson's (2001b) work on mapping place meaning, begins to explore relationships to an array of places. This research, along with studies of people's experiences with nature, offers valuable insights into the fundamental dimensions of our relationships with places outside the residence, but further research is needed to better understand the full range of places with which we develop relationships and how these relationships are forged.

Moreover, because of the power and importance of concepts of belonging, protection and comfort, research has tended to focus on positive affective bonds to places (Moore, 2000; Manzo, 2003). Consequently, there is much we still do not know about how negative and ambivalent feelings and experiences contribute to place meaning. Brown & Perkins’ (1992) research sheds light on disruptions to positive relationships to place, illuminating the impact of negative experiences. But what if relationships to place are negative or ambivalent to begin with? Can we be trapped or stifled by relationships to place? How can these aspects of place relationships be understood? We must learn more about the full spectrum of people's experiences in places if we are to understand the complex and multi-faceted phenomena that comprise our emotional relationships to places (Manzo, 2003). The research presented in this paper was therefore undertaken to explore these other dimensions of our emotional relationships with places, examining both the range of places to which people develop emotional bonds, and the range of experiences that create meaning.

Much of the literature on people's emotional relationships to places has roots in phenomenology (Bachelard, 1969; Relph, 1976; Seamon (1982), Seamon (2000)). This perspective provides a rich understanding of complex, intangible phenomena that do not readily lend themselves to psychometric measurement. Indeed, the phenomenologists call for a return to the everyday lifeworld of lived experience (Dovey, 2002) and a move away from the objectification of place and its meaning (Million, 1996). Much of this work builds upon Heidegger's (1971) notions of being-in-the-world seeking to explore the ontological primacy of place (Stefanovic, 2004). It also provides a conceptual language that allows us to explore everyday, often taken-for-granted experiences of place (Seamon, 1996). It is noteworthy that a number of theorists (Casey, 1993; Mugerauer, 1994; Malpas, 1999) examine place in a way that seeks to go beyond both reductionist paradigms and the focus on spatio-temporal location. They embrace both movement and rest (Seamon, 1979), “implacement” and “displacement” (Casey, 1993), insideness and outsideness (Relph, 1976), as part of the geography of the lifeworld. These continua and dialectic phenomena allow for a full range of place experiences both positive and negative, intimate and distant. The empirical work on place attachment and meaning has a great deal to learn from these conceptualizations.

While phenomenological conceptualizations of place are malleable and complex, they have often been explored through literal and metaphorical treatments of home. It has been argued that this focus stems from the fact that home represents the Jungian archetype of shelter, a universal construct in the human psyche (Cooper Marcus, 1995). Indeed, “home” is viewed as the central reference point for many researchers and philosophers (Bachelard, 1969; Buttimer, 1980; Korosec-Serfaty, 1984; Sixsmith, 1986). Bachelard (1969) argues that “our home is our corner of the world…it is our first universe, a real cosmos in every sense of the word” (p. 4). Similarly, Norberg-Shultz (1985) claims that each individual needs a fixed place, which for him, takes the form of the house: “the faithful heart does not like to ramble about without a homestead. It needs a fixed spot to return to, it wants its square house” (p. 12). As Riley (1992) points out, “this insistency on home as archetype persists…despite evidence all around us that home is an extraordinarily malleable concept” (p. 25).

As Moore (2000) has pointed out, “home” is frequently used as a spatial metaphor for relationships to a variety of places, as well as a way of being in the world (Hayward, 1975; Howard, 1993; Moore, 2000; Williams & McIntyre, 2001). For example, research has explored the concept of “at-homeness” as the “usually unnoticed, taken-for-granted situation of being comfortable in, and familiar with, the everyday world in which one lives, and outside of which one is visiting” (Seamon, 1979; p. 70). The components of this experience are rootedness, appropriation, or the sense of possession and control over a space, regeneration, at-easeness, and warmth (Seamon, 1979). This is a rich conceptualization of place experience, yet labeling these experiences as “at-homeness” obscures both our connections to places beyond the residence, and the impact of negative experiences of the residence, leaving unexplored the ways in which we can understand what is not home—literally or metaphorically. This is problematic because the concept of home has often been interpreted literally, reinforcing a view of the residence as a defining rubric in people's lives (Moore, 2000; Manzo, 2003). This does not accurately reflect the nature of everyone's experience of place, however.

The feminist literature provides an important critique of treatments of “home.” Ehrenreich and English (1978) argue that the romanticization of home emerged with the removal of the means of production from the domicile. They posit that this separation of the public and private sphere created an unreasonable expectation of the residence in which “all that is human must crowd into the sphere of private life” (p. 10). Martin and Mohanty (1986) add that social scientists “have responded to the rhetoric of home and family by merely reproducing the most conventional articulations of those terms in their own writing” (p. 191). They argue that this limits our understanding of the complex relationships to places and to the residence in particular.

Exploring place meaning by primarily examining experiences of the residence or rootedness in a community leads us to assume that those who do not have strong, positive affective bonds with their residence are placeless. Writings on mobility leave some authors lamenting the loss of place meaning (Tall, 1996), but for others the journey itself is meaningful. This is illustrated in the short story, “Going Home: A Poetic Memoir” in which a writer describes her life on the road (McElroy, 1996). The author explains that her “home,” is not one stationary location, but the process of traveling itself. She asks, “What is home if the road that draws you away from it is more familiar, more comforting?” In trying to make sense of her life, McElroy muses over the recurring dialogue she has with her mother: “‘Why you got to go to all those places?’ Mama asks. ‘Because they are there,’ I say. ‘All that going and coming,’ she says. ‘Always going home,’ I think” (McElroy, 1996, p. 34). Thus, the author finds her own answer: “Home is what you find when you get there. Home is any place on this planet” (p. 29). This particular story captures the dilemma posed by the language of home. It reflects the conundrum encountered when writers and scholars go between literal and metaphorical interpretations of home, thus revealing the limitations of a residential framework (Moore, 2000). Here, Relph's (1976) notions of insideness and outsideness seem more fitting. In his framework, movement does not necessarily imply outsideness; rather it reflects the fluidity of the lifeworld suggested in McElroy's story.

Other nuances of place experience and meaning emerge in writings in cultural anthropology and geography on nomadic life, pilgrimage, and migration (Singh & Singh, 1987; Robertson et al., 1994; Rao, 2002). For example, studies of nomadic people such as the Bedouins of Asia Minor or the Yanadi of India, whose way of life depends on movement from place to place, reveal that their way of inhabiting the earth is not location specific (Rao, 2002). Huts and tents can be raised and taken down easily as people move about with their homes or construct new ones at each site (Altman & Chemers, 1986). In cases of pilgrimage, the site of one's residence does not change, but the significance of the pilgrimage, and its impact on identity, place the same value on movement and journey that others put on their residence (Morinis, 1992). This work not only reinforces the idea of the subjectivity and fluidity of notions of home across cultures, it also emphasizes the social construction and dialectic nature of place meaning. Indeed this work significantly shifts our view of dwelling in a broader existential sense. As Rajchman (1998) notes: “Once we give up the belief that our life-world is rooted in the ground, we may thus come to a point where ungroundedness is no longer experienced as existential anxiety and despair but as a freedom and lightness that finally allows us to move” (p. 88). This work challenges us to think differently about the nature of our emotional connections to place.

Putting relationships to nonresidential places in terms of feeling “at home” gives primacy to a place and experience that does not necessarily reflect the complexity of people's lives. It does not allow us to understand relationships to nonresidential places on their own merit and in their own terms, nor does it help to understand the less positive aspects of our relationships to our residence (Manzo, 2003). As the findings of the present research reveal, a whole array of places constitute our lifeworld and are of central importance in our lives, hence even this residential/nonresidential dichotomy has limited utility. But because of the cultural myths about home, its popular use as a metaphor for a way of being, and its literal translation in some research on place attachment, it is important to look at both residential and nonresidential settings and their role in people's lives to get beyond this framework. Certainly, we can find warmth and a sense of belonging in many different places (Gustafson, 2001b), just as we can feel alienated in them (Manzo, 2003). Moreover, in looking holistically at place experience and meaning, we can see that experiences of belonging exist alongside experiences of alienation, that identity exists within the context of difference and that dwelling includes movement and change (Seamon, 1979).

Phenomenology of place has been wrongly conflated with essentialism (Dovey, 2002, p. 46). This manifests itself, in part, in explorations of home. But many phenomenological theories treat place and place experience in a more holistic way, seeing them as dialectic phenomena that take us beyond such essentialism and beyond the metaphor of home. In particular, Relph's (1976) theory of insideness–outsideness provide a field of conceptual clarity for understanding a fundamental dialectic in place experience—that of belongingness and alienation (Seamon, 1996). For example, Relph's concept of “existential insideness” is an intimate place experience, a situation of deep, unself-conscious immersion in place, while the opposite, “existential outsideness,” is a sense of strangeness and alienation (Seamon, 1996). Similarly, Casey (1993) calls for a renewed understanding of the “place-world” which allows for both “implacement” and displacement, and he sees elements of movement and journey as a part of dwelling. These are powerful frameworks for understanding place experience and meaning in all of its dimensions.

The body of research on place attachment, identity and meaning has grown, sometimes building upon phenomenological theories, sometimes developing separately. Much of the early research on place attachment and meaning studied attachments to the residence and the immediate community. However, this research continues to grow in new directions, shedding light on the meanings of an array of places in our lifeworlds. This includes literature on people's experiences with, and attachments to, nature and outdoor recreation settings (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989; Kaplan, 1995; Williams & Vaske, 2003; Kyle, Graefe, Manning, & Bacon, 2004). This research offers valuable insights into the ways that places outside the residence can enrich our lives and our sense of self. As a whole, this research uses diverse theoretical and methodological approaches. For example, some research looks at individual attachments, while others explore shared meanings, such as those among teens at a local recreation center (Henderson & King, 1999), and those among different ethnic and racial groups (Virden & Walker, 1999; Taylor, 2000; Low et al., 2002). Some studies also look at the role of collective memory on racially based meaning of wildland settings (Johnson, 1998; Johnson & Bowker, 2004) (this will be discussed further in the next section).

While many studies on place meaning in outdoor recreation settings take a quantitative approach and endeavor to measure place attachments, some research engages in qualitative explorations of the lived experience of place within these settings. One recent qualitative study of campers’ long-term involvement in an agricultural encampment and fair uses narrative theory for an in-depth exploration of the meanings of this site (Kyle & Chick, 2004). Other qualitative studies explore wilderness experiences, revealing that these settings offer important, even spiritual, experiences (Frederickson & Anderson, 1999) and research on “deep ecology” describes people's experiences with nature as integral to one's sense of self (Nash, 1990; Fox, 1990; Zimmerman, Callicott, Sessions, Warren, & Clark, 1993; Bragg, 1996). As more is learned about relationships to natural environments, we see new dimensions of place experience and meaning unfold. While this has caused some scholars to argue that past research on place attachment “has produced simplistic interpretations of the person–place interaction” (Frederickson & Anderson, 1999, p. 22), I believe it suggests a need to expand current explorations to include the role and meanings of places beyond the residence or nature/wilderness.

The literature on community open spaces also sheds light on the importance of an array of places in our lives. For example, Hester's (1993) community revitalization and design work in the town of Manteo, South Carolina gave careful consideration to the meaning that particular places held for the local townspeople. These places constituted what Hester and the townspeople called the “sacred structure” of the town—that is, those places that residents did not want harmed or altered. Similarly, Low's (2000) work on Costa Rican plazas demonstrates the importance of town plazas in people's everyday lives, on both a personal and cultural level. Both studies illustrate the value and meaning of a variety of places as well as the socio-cultural and political aspects of our relationships to place.

From these explorations, we can see that our relationships to places go beyond the realm of the residence and even the metaphor of home. In light of this, Heidegger (1962), Heidegger (1971) notion of “being-in-the-world,” provides a particularly helpful, nuanced understanding of people's relationships to places, the domain of which, he argued, extends beyond one setting. The concept of “being-in-the-world” allows room for a diversity of places and experiences, context and meaning, reflecting the dynamism of our relationships to places. In addition, the use of the term “being” suggests the impact of place on identity, as “being” is an ontological structure that Heidegger relates to place. Indeed, this is the work that phenomenologists often build upon. The present research seeks to further explore people–place relationships from this broader, dynamic perspective of Heidegger and the phenomenologists, exploring not only the range of places that are especially important and meaningful for people, but also the range of experiences that create meaning, in an effort to understand particularly what place experiences, if any, might go beyond home and haven.

While earlier research on place attachment has typically focused on positive affect, scholars now call for a broader understanding of emotional relationships to places that incorporates negative and ambivalent feelings (see esp. Chawla, 1993; Howard, 1993; Manzo, 2003). Guiliani and Feldman (1993) suggest that conceptualizing relationships to place as “attachment” has made understanding negative experiences particularly challenging:

To speak of negative attachment contrasts with the everyday meaning of the world. The places where Nazi lagers were located are certainly ‘places’ with a strong emotive value, in particular for Jewish people. Would they say that they are ‘attached’ to them? (p. 272).

Relph (1985) also argues that “relationships to places need not be strong and positive,” (p. 27); sometimes there is strong affection for particular places (topophilia), but there may be an aversion for other places (topophobia) (Relph, 1985). Further, being connected to a place may give some people a positive sense of belonging, but for others it may feel oppressive and restrictive (Relph, 1976). This is what Chawla (1992) calls the “shadow side” of our relationships with places. She argues that “if place forms the circumference of our experience, we are attached to it for better or for worse. Therefore, there is a shadow side...composed of…frustrating or frightening places” (Chawla, 1992, p. 66). Research suggests that places where negative experiences occur are as meaningful as places where needs are met and succor is found (Ahrentzen, 1992; Kuribayashi & Tharp, 1998). Hence, “any exploration of place as a phenomenon of direct experience…must be concerned with the entire range of experiences through which we all know and make places” (Relph, 1976, p. 6).

Here, too, research on the human experiential dimensions of outdoor recreation settings sheds new light on the diversity of place experience. For example, a provocative literature on the meaning that African–Americans ascribe to wildland environments suggests that they are perceived as threatening because they resonate in African–Americans’ collective memory with the history of slavery, sharecropping and lynching, which often took place in uninhabited areas (Johnson, 1998). This has been confirmed in other studies of how race, ethnicity and gender influence the affective meanings of natural environments and preferences for outdoor recreation settings, which show that Hispanic and African–Americans perceive forests as more threatening than Whites (Virden & Walker, 1999). This has even been connected to different levels of environmental concern and action between African–Americans and Whites (Taylor, 1989). Other research suggests that labor-related institutions such as forest labor and plantation agriculture have impacted negatively on African–Americans, producing an ambivalence toward wildland areas that sharply contrasts with the dominant perspective of these places as a refuge (Johnson & Bowker, 2004). Finally, an ethnographic study of a national park suggests how ethnic and immigrant groups can feel excluded because of a lack of sensitivity to cultural identity and lack of representation (Low, Taplin, Scheld, & Fisher, 2004). Together, these studies show how a socio-cultural approach to the study of place meaning enables us to better see a range of place experiences and meanings, both positive and negative. They also reveal how social constructions of identity impact place experience and create diverse meanings.

Some feminist research on place experience and meaning also provides insights into the diversity of place experience. In particular, research on women's relationships to their residence has begun to de-mythicize the residence as unswervingly positive (Castelino, 1998). For example, Ahrentzen (1992) points out that women's experiences sometimes contradict images of the residence as a haven: “Home may not be a refuge but a place of violence” (p. 113). Similarly, Anthony's (1997) study of the meanings of the residence to families who have experienced divorce reveals that it can be a painful place. In such cases, the family residence is a considerable source of stress, and may continue to be so even after the divorce, as those who leave sometimes feel evicted, and those who remain must adjust to changing meanings of the residence (Anthony, 1997). This study is one of the few that explicitly addresses negative experiences of the residence, and the dynamism of this relationship over time. In exploring these aspects of residential experience, it balances our perspective of the residence.

The significance of negative and ambivalent feelings and experiences of place are suggested in early definitions of place identity. Proshansky (1978) originally defined place identity as “those dimensions of the self that define the individual's personal identity in relation to the physical environment by means of a complex pattern of conscious and unconscious ideas, beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, goals and behavioral tendencies” (p. 155). In his later work with colleagues, he argues that place identity is comprised of a “cluster of positively and negatively valenced cognitions of physical settings” (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983, p. 62). It is noteworthy that these authors further posit that place identity extends “far beyond a conception of identity in which the home and its surroundings are the necessary and sufficient component referents” (p. 61) (see also Gustafson, 2001b).

Newer research exploring the fundamental dimensions of place meaning and identity adds further insight into the range of place experience. For example, Twigger-Ross and Uzzell's (1996) work on place and identity processes suggests four essential principles—distinctiveness, continuity, self-esteem and self-efficacy—at play in our relationships to place. Similarly, Gustafson's (2001b) identifies the underlying dimensions of place meaning as distinction, valuation, continuity and change. There is some noteworthy overlap in these frameworks, but important differences as well. For example, both identify distinctiveness as an essential principle but for Twigger-Ross and Uzzell, the focus is on the distinction of self, whereas for Gustafson the focus of distinction is on the differentiation of one place from another. Nonetheless, by focusing on the fundamental essence of place experiences, both of these empirically driven theories offer a more nuanced approach to understanding relationships to place that can embrace a host of places and experiences.