Examine the ways in which the body provides the material basis for connection with the environment
Geographers have traditionally associated the body with space and the environment, however previously the body has been ignored until recently. Valentine (2001) says “the body is not just in space, but it is a space in itself.” In this context it is the body that creates space and the environment. An example of this is a football field. Before the intervention of the body the football field is merely just a field. The intervention of the body transforms the football field into a physical, imaginative and social environment. Henry Lefebvre (1991) proposes that space is a social product. Lefebvre (1991) views that space is actively produced by the body which supports Valentine’s statement. It also suggests that space would not exist if it was alone, it needs both the effect of the body and nature to be constructed. The nature of this environment is limited by its inhabitants and the use of the body. He also views space as being a fixed construct, unfinished and prone to the social and political effects of the body. Lefebvre (1991) sees space as being extremely diverse. He claims that there are three cognitive modes that are mutual to three types of produced spaces within the environment which are: perceived space, conceived space and lived space. According to Oliver (2012) perceived space is related to spatial practices, conceived space is related to representations of space and how space is conceptualised and lived space is related to representational space(s) in the sense it is passively lived.
The body is seen as a sensuous organ as it is the location for pleasure (Johnston 1998) or pain. It is regarded as our means of connecting with and experiencing space (Valentine 2001). The body is where our personal identities are created and developed (Smith 1993), these are created due to our bodily features including: gender, race, age and ability. Synnott (1993) says that there is no universal agreement in regard to where the body begins and ends.
Descartes a philosopher of the 17th century created a theory of a mind/body dualism (Valentine 2001). Traditionally the mind was seen as the only object with the ability of intelligence and spirituality whereas the corporeal body was a “machine directed by the soul” (Turner 1996). Merleau-Ponty (2002) disagreed with this statement and argued that subjectivity is located in the body rather than the mind, the body is seen as the locus of experience. Grosz (1994) supported this statement as she argued that the mind is always embodied as did Seamon (1979) who said that the body is “capable of its own thought and action.” There was also opposition against Descartes’ theory from other philosophers during the same century and previous to the Cartesian division. Cartesian views of the world produced modern science and medicine, they saw the body as “a site of objective intervention, to be mapped, measured and experimented on” (Turner 1996). Related to this is the development of medical technologies where there are now increased opportunities of intervention in the body e.g. transplants and plastic surgery.
In contrast some philosophers have always believed there has been a mind/body divide. The mind was always viewed as having positive attributes and the body negative. The mind included: rationality, consciousness, reason and masculinity. The body includes emotionality, nature, irrationality and femininity (Valentine 2001). Due to the body being associated with femininity it has been regarded as being close to nature. An example of this is the control nature has on female bodies in natural cycles of menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth. The body of a woman has been expected to occupy space differently to a man. Marion Young (1980) draws upon observations of Erwin Strauss where he noted that boys and girls throw a ball differently. Young identifies that women are estranged from their bodies and therefore are withdrawn within the use of space. The examples she uses are that women traditionally sit cross legged. In her view women are not utilising space to its maximum potential. To contrast men are connected with the environment and Bob Connell (2005) claims there is an expectation of men to utilise their body as a skill and therefore utilise and occupy space. Men surpass their embodiment as they see their body as just the host of their consciousness (Longhurst 1997). Man can distance himself from his emotions where as women are known to be subject to an unexpected inexplicable change in their emotions. Gillian Rose (1993) and Robyn Longhurst (1997) identify this as the catalyst that has moulded geographers’ understanding of space (Valentine 2001).
Feminist geographers have identified a difference between biology and gender. Gender is the combination of the way sexes are different socially in a ranked order. There are 3 different types of bodies according to Julia Cream (1995). The first is the transsexual, second intersexed baby and the third the XXY female. The bodies of females have historically been viewed as being inferior to men’s and these arguments have stemmed from biology and natural essences. However, essentialist disagree with this where their view is that bodies are as a result from discourses, representations and material practices and not biology. Recently geographers have drifted away from thinking of sex and gender in this way. Geographers are now focussing on embodied performance seeking to challenge the way that the body is dualistic following Descartes’ theory. This new approach allows us to focus on “the connections that bind us together” (Lawson 2007).)
Shilling (1993) takes another view of the connection between the body and the environment and see’s similarities between women and the bodies of black people where they have been defined by their bodies. During the 1960’s in Australia women were regarded as being less intellectual than men and therefore disallowed to train as pilots. Similar to women he says that the preconception of a black body is that it is pre-social, and it is driven by biology. These are viewed as essentialist arguments (Valentine 2001). This view has been contested by constructionists who argue there is no ‘natural’ body because it is ‘culturally mapped’ (Fuss 1990). Black people were traditionally used as commodities during the slave labour era and their worth were defined through their bodies. In support of this Ware (1992) argues that colonial ideologies still remain to be relevant in social relations between “black men and white women in contemporary Western societies”. The black masculine men are seen as dangerous, criminal and uncontrollable whereas the white females are seen as pure and vulnerable.
To conclude the body is undeniably inter-connected with the environment. The body creates space and utilises it in everyday life. Valentine (2001) identifies three ways in which we can think of the body as a space. The first is that it is a surface which is subject to change and adaptation due to culture. Our identities, values and personalities are imprinted upon the surface of our body. Elizabeth Grosz (1993) termed this as “social tattooing”. Second it is sensuous and is the foundations of “connection with, and experience of, the world”. Thirdly it links both space and psychology. The body is always a social and discursive object according to Grosz (1994). Butler (1990) theorises gender as performative where the body performances themselves constitute or (re)produce space and place. The connection between ourselves and others are due to the body but Cresswell 1996 also identifies the body as what distinguishes ourselves from each other. Finally as Staeheli et al (2013) says it is “through the materiality of our bodies that we experience the outside world and that the outside world perceives us”. It is our bodies that mould and create how we “access and experience places” (Staeheli et al 2013).