Cultural Geography

extended (Pile and Thrift, 1995: 11).This trend

may continue in the future. For example, inter-

estingly, many of the chapters in this book (not

just this section) can be read as contributions

on the subject and subjectivity. I think this

illustrates a growing recognition that the

subject and subjectivity are at the heart of cul-

tural geography. There have been numerous

recent attempts to understand subjects as

complex, multifaceted and interconnected

with spaces. One such attempt is evidenced in

geographers’ recent interest in actor network

theory (for reviews see Murdoch, 1997a;

1997b; also see Hetherington and Law, 1999).

One aspect of actor network theory is that

it attempts to deconstruct the boundaries

around which western knowledges are formu-

lated, for example the boundaries between

nature and culture (also see Haraway, 1991;

Whatmore, 1999). In this way, the field of sub-

jectivity can be seen to encompass ‘the object

world’. Questioning the boundaries between

non-human and human, nature and culture, is

leading to some very interesting research. For

example, see Bankey’s (2001) and Davidson’s

(2000; 2001) (cited in Bondi and Davidson’s

chapter) work on constructions of (irrational)

agoraphobic women. The ‘problematic’ or

‘phobic’ experiences of these women bring

into sharp focus the intertextuality of subjec-

tivities and spaces. The authors focus quite

literally on a blurring of boundaries between

bodies and spaces. Susan Bordo (in Bordo

et al., 1998: 80) discusses her experiences of

agoraphobia, explaining that during a panic

attack she became faint, but instead of putting

her head between her knees ‘as a normal

person would do seeking to restore equilibrium

through the trusted processes of one’s own

body’ she responded like ‘a drowningperson’,

her only thought to find air. During panic

attacks agoraphobics often feel as though

their bodies collude with place to become

one.

Prorok (2000) also attempts to understand

the relationship between subjectivity and

space through an examination of boundaries.

She focuses on Espiritismo – ‘a system of rit-

ual healing indigenous to the Caribbean’

(2000: 57). Prorok carried out fieldwork in

an Espiritismo worshipping community in

Manhattan, New York City for nearly three

years. Her aim was to explore the boundaries

between the human world and the spirit

world, self and community, Catholic and non-

Catholic, and male and female.

The kind of research cited above, and the

contributions in this section, force us to

consider questions surrounding boundaries –

boundaries between minds and bodies, dis-

courses and materiality, the conscious and the

unconscious, different facets of subjectivity,

and subjects and the object world. Increas-

ingly, it seems that any consideration of subjec-

tivity requires a consideration of boundaries

(see Longhurst, 2001). I am suggesting not that

boundaries always need to be removed or

overcome, but that we need to think about

what is at stake in the formulation and secur-

ing of particular boundaries for specific pur-

poses in relation to subjectivity and space.We

need to figure out which aspects of subjectiv-

ity and space matter when, and how coalitions

can be constructed to create more emancipa-

tory social relations.

Not only are questions about boundaries

becoming increasingly important in under-

standing subjectivity, but so too are questions

about the body and embodiment. Over the

past few years the body and embodiment have

come to occupy a prime position in cultural

geographers’ accounts of subjectivity. In 1995

Pile and Thrift noted:

Nowadays, the subject and subjectivity are more likely

to be conceived of as rooted in the spatial home of the

body, and therefore situated, as composed of and by a

‘federation’ of different discourses/persona, united and

orchestrated to a greater or lesser extent by narrative,

and as registered through a whole series of senses.

(1995: 11)

A quick glance at recent books indicates

that there are many different perspectives on

the body and embodiment (for a range of

examples see Ahmed and Stacey, 2001; Bell

et al., 2001; Butler and Parr, 1999; Duncan,

1996; Holliday and Hassard, 2001; Longhurst,

2001; Nast and Pile, 1998; Pile, 1996). One

approach that has recently gained some pop-

ularity is ‘non-representational theory’ (a

term coined by Thrift, 1996).Thrift and Dews-

bury argue that non-representational theory

‘emphasizes the flow of practice in everyday

life as embodied, as caught up with and com-

mitted to the creations of affect, as contex-

tual, and as inevitably technologised through

INTRODUCTION 287

Section-5.qxd 03-10-02 10:38 AM Page 287