The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: LElumalai Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_C Date:31/3/09
Time:21:45:53 Filepath://ppdys1108/BlackwellCup/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-
9781405132879/appln/3B2/revises/9781405132879_4_C.3d

of the twentieth centuries – characterized by

either indentured labour systems or kinship-

based chain migration (predominantly of

men), followed by a post-Second World War

phase during which a ‘bachelor society’ was

gradually transformed by the presence of more

female migrants and family immigration (Chen,

1992; Benton and Gomez, 2003). Largely self-

organizing entities, socio-political life and the

provision of cradle-to-grave services in these

transplanted communities were anchored, to

different extents in different communities, by

Chinese associations based on clan, surname,

dialect or provenance. Portrayed as an immi-

grant neighbourhood or an ethnicenclave,

Chinatown is identified as a reception area for

newcomers, an agglomeration of ethnic busi-

nesses (including ‘illegal’ or ‘immoral’ prac-

tices such as drug trafficking, gambling and

prostitution) serving its ‘own kind’, and the

focal point of a well-knitcommunityin a

foreign land. The Chinatown depicted in this

vein is essentially an outpost of a foreign coun-

try, comprising adiasporaof unassimilable

foreigners.

Recent scholarship has challenged our

understanding of Chinatown in at least three

ways. First, Chinatown is not just an exported

structure, but the product of host society recep-

tion, including colonial labour policies in some

instances and racial discriminatory and discur-

sive practices more generally. In colonial cities

of South East Asia, Chinatown as a racial cat-

egorization and spatial container to accommo-

date the Chinese emerged as part of colonial

urban planning, and often featured in colonial

discoursesas a landscape of filth, pestilence

and moray decay (Yeoh and Kong, 1994). In

Western contexts, by placing the idea of

Chinatown at the centre ofrace-definition

processes, Anderson (1987, p. 581) argues that

‘Chinatown is a social construction with a cul-

tural history and a tradition of imagery and

institutional practice that has given it a cogni-

tive and material reality in and for the West.’

More than aplace-nameor a social commu-

nity, Chinatown is also part of theimaginative

geographiesunderpinning white European

culturalhegemony(seechinatown).

Second, using Chinatown as a spatial refer-

ence for an essentialized Chineseidentityor

‘chopsticks culture’ fails to recognize differ-

ences of class, sub-ethnic affiliation and cul-

tural history among members of Chinese

communities. Social and economic mobility,

generational change and the influx of later

arrivals from different parts of mainland

China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and other

Chinese communities have transformed closed

social structures and introduced diversity in

terms of class, occupations, educational

backgrounds, political affiliations and even

ethnic consciousness among those identified

with Chinatown (Chen, 1992; Kwong, 2001;

Christiansen, 2003).

Third, against portrayals of Chinatown as

an enclave economy that defies integration

into the mainstream, Zhou (1992) argues that

immigrant Chinese in Chinatowns in the US

context are able to draw upon social capital

and networks to surmount structural barriers

and facilitate socio-economic mobility. From

this perspective, Chinatown as an ethnic

enclave provides a mechanism for eventual

immigrant incorporation into mainstream

society.

Chinatown landscapes are also increasingly

revitalized for the purposes ofheritage tour-

ismor promoted as gentrified, conservation

settings to enhance urban aesthetics in global-

izing cities. Along with other ethnic neigh-

bourhoods ranging from Koreatown to Little

India, Chinatown as the inscription of race in

place has continued to evolve in tandem not

only withimmigrationdynamics but with the

politics ofplace. by

Suggested reading

Anderson (1992); Yeoh and Kong (1994); Zhou

(1992).

chorology/chorography The study of the

variation in the Earth’s surface from place

to place (see also areal differentiation).

Chorology represents the oldest tradition of

Western geographical enquiry. It was first

codified by Hecataeus of Miletus in the sixth

centurybceand systematized by Strabo in the

seventeen books of hisGeography, probably

written betweenad18 and 24. The geog-

rapher, he wrote, is ‘the person who attempts

to describe the parts of the earth’ (in Greek,

chorographein). The two key words were

‘describe’ and ‘parts’: in effect, Strabo was

recommending what would now be called

regional geographyas the core of geograph-

ical reflection. He was not interested in chor-

ography for its own sake, but intended it to

serve a higher purpose. The production of

geographical knowledge was an indispensable

complement to political and moralphiloso-

phy, because it provided a material ground for

understanding truth, nobility and virtue. For

this reason, Strabo’s geography was funda-

mentally concerned with human activities. It

was also directed towards political and social

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_C Final Proof page 82 31.3.2009 9:45pm

CHOROLOGY/CHOROGRAPHY