Cultural Geography

stereotyping. Romancing unproblematized

categories is dangerous and reinforces colonizing

relationships as assumptions of universality are

not challenged. McDowell draws upon hooks to

argue that:

it is not possible to merely invert or reverse old

categories, rather we have to decolonize our minds and

construct new alternatives. She [hooks] suggests that

women and people of colour cannot possibly be

immune from hegemonic notions of knowledge. There

is no position outside the social construction of knowl-

edge where an unsullied ‘other’ might speak from.

‘Others’ too have internalized that set of Western philo-

sophical dualist concepts that structure knowledge –

internalized and, often, inverted the dualisms, reluctant

to consider the possibility that work is not necessary

oppositional because it is created by women.

(1992a: 411)

Esteva talks about the need to challenge and tran-

scend the assertion and imposition of universal

values by solidly grounding values in the experi-

ences of ‘daily life’, of situated places:

I am now more than convinced that if one fully accepts

cultural relativism ... one must also accept its conse-

quences, i.e. the dissolution of universal values. This

does not mean, of course, having no guiding principles

to live in community. It means exactly the opposite,

having them fully rooted in the perception and attitudes

of daily life, instead of supplanting them with artificial

constructs which are hypothetically universal and more

or less ahistorical. (1987: 138)

CONCLUSION: SHATTERED

MIRRORS AND REFLECTION

ON REFLECTIONS

This chapter has argued that cultural geography

often relies on Eurocentric discourses. Even self-

consciously postcolonial discourses reflect and

reinforce pervasive channels of power, such as

education, research and governance, to privilege

and reprivilege Eurocentric ontologies against

diverse local, indigenous and non-Eurocentric

traditions. Weaving together field experience

and secondary literature, it has been argued that

these hegemonic discourses construct a hall of

mirrors. Many of the most problematic human

and environmental relationships of contempo-

rary experience are constructed within this hall

of mirrors.

We have argued that cultural geography must

consider what is involved in moving beyond this

hall of mirrors. Shattering the mirrors and step-

ping beyond the solipsistic monologue of

Eurocentric discourses is necessary, but not

sufficient. Cultural geographers face a difficult

balancing act in simultaneously nurturing one’s

expertise, and minimizing its value per se. We

have advocated situated engagement as an

approach that allows the discipline to address

this. In the first instance, this dislodges

Eurocentric knowledges from the frame of

universalized constructs. Without this frame (or

with it constructed as an assumption subject to

further consideration) the hall of mirrors is less

secure and one hasto begin differently – to

approach empirical questions, value questions

and methodological questions as a coinvestigator

with non-technical experts within the relevant

local or indigenous groups. To do this requires

consideration of histories, geographies, lan-

guages and powers; it involves simultaneously

reaching in, reaching out and reaching across

from the hall of mirrors – and in the process it

reveals the logical flaws within the looking glass.

We have aimed to open a discursive space that

reaches out, across and into a wider discursive

community. This engagement opens up situated,

interrelated conceptual and discursive places and

allows ideas, knowledges and thoughts to be

recognized and understood.

The image of shattering the mirrors signals the

urgent need to recognize the limits of Eurocentric

knowledges. On reflection, shattering is perhaps

too violent a response to the violations involved

in colonizing processes. Perhaps an image of

transforming mirrors into windows is more suit-

able. This would allow knowledges to remain

embodied and emplaced (rather than lacerated by

splintered glass), but perspectives gained from

looking out of windows and seeing multiple

knowledges would decentre the assumption that

any single knowledge system is superior or

universal. But even this metaphorical transforma-

tion is too limited. Looking out of windows is

grossly inadequate as a basis for reconciling onto-

logical diversity in real social, political and inter-

cultural relations. Windows need to be opened.

To allow a breath of fresh air in, these windows

must stay open. This will encourage people to

actively and intimately reach in, reach out and

reach across to engage with each other in embod-

ied and emplaced ways. Opening windows not

only allows an engagement with other knowl-

edges, but also opens a window to the soul as one

engages on a personal level with one’s own

knowledges and understandings. Such reflection

on one’s own position shows that it is impossible,

and counterproductive, to aim for complete

empathy with all knowledges:

The means by which we come to know the unknown

Other will always be determined by our own terms of

CONTESTED CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 567

3029-ch31.qxd 03-10-02 11:10 AM Page 567