414-

Landscape geography, 1993-94

James Duncan
Department of Geography, Syracuse University, 343 Crouse Hall, Syracuse,
NY 12344-1160, USA

I Introduction

In this my final review, I survey the recent work on landscape interpretation in cultural
geography, and also attempt to clarify some misunderstandings about the meaning of the
term landscape. One of my goals will be to disentangle two quite different usages of the
term landscape which have often been conflated by commentators on the work of cultural
geographers. Each has a different genealogy; one in the arts, the other in the social
sciences; one drawn from Holland and Britain, the other from Germany and the USA; one
from the study of high culture and the other from the study of popular culture.
In the first usage landscape is defined as a way of seeing. This definition has been
introduced into geography primarily through the work of Cosgrove (1984) and Daniels
(1993; Cosgrove and Daniels, 1988). In their accounts, landscape is a painterly way of
seeing the world that creates a picturesque view. Such a painterly way of seeing, as they
point out, is an 61ite way of seeing, not only because it was the wealthy classes of Europe
who commissioned paintings but also because there developed a dialectical relationship
between the rural landscape and painting. Wealthy estate owners paid landscape architects
to design their properties to look like landscape paintings and then had them painted.
The other principal definition of landscape is closer to popular usage in that landscape is
a portion of a natural and cultural environment - it is material. Although it is seen, it is ’out
there’, so to speak, rather than in one’s head. This definition of landscape originated in
nineteenth-century Germany and was introduced into American geography through the
work of the Berkeley school. Its subject was the ’folk’ landscape and it sought to
understand how rural peasants encoded their cultural values on the land.
Perhaps one can trace these differences in the definition of landscape in terms of the
differences between nineteenth-century English and German romanticism and the original
political projects entailed in each; the one of reinforcing a class position and the other of
forging a national identity. The latter was expressly not based upon 61ite views, as these
were seen as thoroughly ’tainted’ by foreign cultural values. American cultural
geographers
have, until the past decade, placed a strong emphasis upon the study of rural folk
landscapes rather than upon urban or even rural 61ite ones. The earlier German political
project had, of course, disappeared in twentieth-century America but the academic project
 415

of demonstrating how culture was linked to the soil continued.

Recently a number of variants on these two traditions has emerged. From the painterly
tradition has sprung a broader interest in theorizing visual representation (see, for
example, Schein, 1993) which disengages the notion of landscape from its specific 61ite,
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European painterly context. Out of the other tradition,
which studies landscapes in their material and artifactual forms, has come a concern not
just with rural folk traditions but also with the encoding of various class and political values
in the landscape. Some researchers have then gone on to argue that the landscape not only
reflects the cultural but also plays a critical role in constituting it.
Within these broader traditions, a number of more specific models of landscape
interpretation have been put forward. One is that the landscape can be interpreted as a text
which is read as a textual transformation of other texts within a culture (Duncan, 1990).
This sociosemiotic approach adopts a transcultural framework which sees cultures as
interconnected series of communicative codes and landscapes as one of many signifying
systems through which a social order is communicated, reproduced and contested. Unlike
the landscape as a ’way of seeing’ model, which Cosgrove and Daniels have been careful
not to generalize, the landscape as text model is fairly empty of specific cultural content.
Thus this model is one which can be applied to many different cultures. Having said this,
the model requires in-depth empirical research to work out the many cultural and
historical specificities of the relationship between landscape and other texts within each
culture.
Another model is that landscape can be interpreted as theatre (Cosgrove, 1992; Daniels
and Cosgrove, 1993). This dramaturgical approach to landscape was suggested by the
work of Erving Goffman, although Cosgrove and Daniels focus more attention on the
visual and painterly (stage sets to continue the metaphor) than Goffman, who focused
primarily on the actors.
Each of the above perspectives has strengths and weaknesses. The painterly tradition is
good at showing us that the landscape is a way of representing the world and that
representations have very real political consequences. A limitation of this approach is that
it is focused on Europe and is not (nor should it be) translated to other cultures. It should
be noted, however, that this is a critical theory and as such its focus on Europe and on 61ite
classes does not make it either eurocentric or elitist as some commentators have been too
quick to assume. The study of hegemony remains valuable and must be retained, along
with, and complexly intertwinned with, studies of resistance. Questions of complicity,
while important to ask, are extremely difficult to answer.
The original model of folk landscapes is strong on providing a detailed description and
history of landscapes. It is weaker when it comes to showing how landscapes are used in
the reproduction and transformation of societies. Coming out of this folk landscape
tradition, however, is a model of landscape as one of the many cultural texts through which
cultural and political values are communicated. A strength of this model is that, while
retaining the definition of landscape as a material phenomenon, it also looks at the social
processes by which landscapes are produced and transformed. The weakness is that in
many instances the complex intertextual connections it posits are immensely difficult to
trace. The dramaturgical model of landscape is powerful in that it captures both the visual
and routinized nature of civic rituals. By relying upon the metaphor of the play, however,
its model of human agency may be limited by the implicit concepts of script and role
playing.
To speak more generally, however, models of landscape as part of the articulation of
416

sociocultural process have much to recommend them. Such approaches firmly root the
study of landscape within the social sciences, allowing geographers to address questions of
importance to historians, anthropologists, sociologists and political scientists, as well as to
other geographers. Unfortunately many practitioners of this approach have tended to pay
insufficient attention to the landscape itself and its history. In this sense, the attention to
empirical detail of those working within the American folk landscape tradition is to be
emulated.
Demeritt (1994) argues that the various new cultural geography approaches to
landscape overstate the cultural construction of landscape and pay insufficient attention to
’nature’ as an agent. He suggests, however, that the remedy lies not in pulling back from
social theory but in looking to different theorists, and he offers the work of Donna
Haraway and Bruno Latour as providing a conceptual framework for seeing nature as
agent as well as a social construction. Mitchell (1994) points out that much of the current
work in landscape interpretation focuses on the consumption of landscapes rather than on
their production, and this again points to interesting future directions for research.
Rose (1993) offers a feminist critique of landscape interpretation. The concept of
landscape she criticizes is the painterly one and her specific targets are Cosgrove and
Daniels for what, she argues, is the ’masculinity’ of their gaze which takes aesthetic
pleasure in the landscape. Rose’s critique points to the problem of geographers’ conflation
of seeing and knowing. Although there is undoubtedly a widespread tendency among
geographers to aestheticize their subject-matter, I think that Daniels and Cosgrove must be
credited with careful historical scholarship, which contextualizes their discussion of how
landscapes have been viewed and represented by historical subjects. In this respect they go
well beyond their own personal interpretation of the sensual surface of the visual
landscapes to investigate the history of representation.
In a very real sense, what emerges in Rose’s critique is ’the battle of the art critics’ as
Rose lines up some well-known feminist art critics - Pollock, Nochlin, Mulvey - against
Cosgrove and Daniels’s humanist-Marxist critical tradition recalling Williams and espe-
cially Berger. The argument, as painterly arguments usually do, hangs on the visual - the
gaze - and onlandscape as a way of seeing rather than on the object that is seen.
Although Rose suggests that her critique is more broadly applicable to other definitions
of landscape, I believe that both the analytical object and interpretive apparatus are limited
to the painterly conception which focuses attention on the gaze. Geographers in other
landscape traditions, however, would surely benefit from more engagement with feminist
theory - which, as Rose advocates, would entail more attention to engendering their
subject-matter as well as embodying and gendering their own positionality with respect to
that subject-matter.

11 The painterly approach to landscape

An example of the painterly approach to landscape is found in W.J.T. Mitchell’s (1994)
edited collection, Landscape and power. The volume, in a manner reminiscent of the work
of Cosgrove and Daniels, analyses landscape as a way of seeing and as a representation of
power. Bermingham’s (1994) essay provides a useful condensation of some of her earlier
work on these topics, while Helsinger (1994) links some of Turner’s landscape painting to
’... a system of &dquo;circulating sites&dquo; associated with the dissonant class interests of
burgeoning British tourism, nationalism and imperialism’ (Mitchell, 1994: 3). Bunn
 417

(1994) explores the transfer of European landscape conventions to South Africa, showing
the role which such representations play in naturalizing the settler. One cannot help but
think that it is a pity that Mitchell is unaware of the valuable work of geographers on these
themes.
Steven Daniels continues to produce important work on the politics of landscape
painting and landscape architecture. In ’Re-visioning Britain’ (1994), using Constable and
Turner as examples, he shows how the remapping of Britain affected landscape painting.
Daniels, along with his colleague, Watkins (1994a; 1994b), argues for the intertextuality of
literature, painting and landscape gardening in an article and an edited collection on the
picturesque in Georgian Hertfordshire. The authors effectively use a particular estate,
Foxley, to draw these connections. This concretizing of vision in a particular time and
place is important, for it demonstrates what a geographical imagination has to offer
cognate fields in the humanities.

IIIl A new synthesis?

There emerged in 1994 a number of signs that a resynthesis of cultural geography is in the
making and that the study of landscape is central to this undertaking. The first is the
appearance of a new international journal entitled Ecumene: Environment, Culture, Mean-
ing. As the title of the journal would suggest, its concern is the discourses through which
culture and nature are imagined and experienced. Although grounded in a set of concerns,
culture and environment - which place it squarely within the remit of cultural geography -
Ecumene is an interdisciplinary journal whose advisory board represents a number of
disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities. In fact the journal positions itself
quite consciously in the borderlands between the humanities and social sciences, reflecting
the hybrid character of both sides of this increasingly suspect administrative divide.
Ecumene has four principal foci which seek to synthesize the developing interests in both
American and British cultural geography (Cosgrove and Duncan, 1994). The first is
culture and landscape, which encompasses both the notion of the cultural dimensions of
the human transformation of the earth as well as the representational qualities of the
landscape. This focus includes the tradition of cultural ecology. The second focus is upon
the histories of geographical knowledges and their impact on lands and peoples. The third
is upon environmental issues such as ecofeminism, deep ecology and green politics. The
final focus is upon dominant and subaltern meanings of landscape, place and space, and
how they get worked out at the global and local scale.
Three decades after that monument to pre-1960s’ American cultural geography,
Wagner and Mikesell’s Readings in cultural geography (1962), was published, a volume self-
consciously styled as its successor has, with Wagner and Mikesell’s blessing, been
published. Re-reading cultural geography, edited by Foote et ai. (1994) sandwiches 29
chapters between Wagner’s (1994) ’Foreword’ and Mikesell’s (1994) ’Afterword’. The
reprinted articles represent a Who’s who of American cultural geography, although it is
curious that Wilbur Zelinsky, arguably the best known and most prolific cultural
geographer writing over the past 30 years, is absent from the list.
Perhaps even more useful to students than the reprinted articles, fine as many of them
are, are the editors’ introductions
to the four sections of the volume. These introductions
admirably introduce and contextualize the essays and, in the process, give students an
overview of American cultural geography at the present time.
418

The volume is divided into four sections. The first contains a foreword and introduction.
The second is entitled ’How the world looks’ and is composed of a mixture of articles on
the rural and urban landscapes in the USA and Mexico. The anthropologist Miles
Richardson (1994) provides a thoughtful commentary at the end of the section, drawing
together themes and discussing the hermeneutics of reading the landscape.
The next section is entitled ’How the world works’ and is largely devoted to cultural
ecology. In this respect the editors retain the structure of the Wagner and Mikesell volume,
where ’process’ (how things work) is synonymous with cultural ecology. The section
concludes with an essay by Parsons (1994) reflecting nostalgically upon cultural geography
as it was.
The fourth section is entitled ’What the world means’ and focuses upon different types
of environmental meaning. Cosgrove (1994) concludes the section with an intelligent
essay on the role of imagination in the practice of cultural geography. The final section of
the volume is entitled ’Future worlds of cultural geography’ and has essays by Butzer
(1994), Duncan (1994) and Salter (1994). Butzer proposes a new curriculum for cultural
geography that is less rooted in what he terms nineteenth-century conceptions and more
relevant to crossdisciplinary perspectives. In my own contribution (Duncan, 1994), I
question the possibility of synthesis, arguing that Anglophone cultural geography is no
longer an exclusively American phenomenon and that cultural geographers should come to
terms with the fact that the subfield is a heterotopia, no longer capable of being unified
under a single vision. Salter suggests we look outside the academy both for our inspiration
and our audience. In his fine afterword, Mikesell critically surveys the subfield and
chastises cultural geographers for ignoring non-Anglophone literatures. Re-reading cultural
geography, however, is a very American book. Essentially the task of the volume is to argue
for American cultural geography as a coherent enterprise and to smooth over the
intergenerational conflict which has soured the atmosphere within the subdiscipline over
the past 15 years. There is little room within this agenda for the new British cultural
geography. The work of British cultural geographers influenced by cultural studies is
mentioned in the introductions and some of the essays, and Cosgrove is invited to write a
commentary. However, the only piece of British cultural geography reprinted is Burgess’s
(1994) ’filming the Fens’ written in 1982. Given that a good deal of the more interesting
cultural geography produced over the past five years is British, it is a shame not to have at
least a smattering of this work for American students to read in the original.
The theme of the representation of landscape and place is explored in an collection
edited by Duncan and Ley ( 1993) . This volume, unlike Re-reading cultural geography, does
not seek to represent all cultural geography. Rather it restricts itself to the practice of new
cultural geography in Britain and North America. The editors suggest a hermeneutic
perspective, which they argue simultaneously takes data seriously and recognizes the
central importance of the interpreter.
One of the most stimulating pieces of cultural geography to appear during this review
period is a textbook. A stimulating textbook may seem to many American readers to be a
contradiction in terms, but Shurmer-Smith and Hannam’s Worlds of desire, realms of power
(1994) is no ordinary textbook. It is brimming over with interesting ideas and novel ways
of exploring landscape, place and space. This is a text which is informed by feminism,
subaltern studies, poststructuralism and psychoanalysis; it is, in other words, the text that
many of us have been waiting for. I have little doubt that it will find a large market in
British universities, and I hope that it is widely adopted in North America as well.
 419

IV Landscape and literature

The study of literature in geography is being taken to a new level by scholars such as Marc
Brosseau (1994; 1995), whose work is influenced by Derrida and poststructuralism,
Jonathan Smith (1993), who draws upon various currents in poststructuralism, George
Henderson (1994) who looks to cultural materialism, Joanne Sharp (1994) who situates
her work within the postcoloniality debates on hybridity and migration, Pamela Shurmer-
Smith (1994) who employs the work of Cixous, and Daniels and Rycroft (1994:461) who
argue for a blurring of genres showing the ’complex overlaps and interconnections’
between ’... the novel, the poem, the travel guide, the map, the regional monograph’.
These scholars have a view of the humanities which is critical, tough minded and very
much au courant de debates within literary and cultural theory. This is a most important
step, as it seems odd, to this reviewer at least, that until recently we have had a form of
literary criticism within geography that was uninformed by contemporary literary theory as
it has been developed in literature departments and in cultural studies. As Brosseau (1994)
points out, much of the landscape through literature work in geography has simply seen
literature as ’another source of new insight’. And as Joanne Sharp (in press) suggests, the
geographers’ relationship to literature has revealed a romantic desire to emulate expression
that is more pure or innately intuitive - as Sharp puts it, ’... a longing not dissimilar to
nineteenth century Western intellectuals’ romanticism of the &dquo;Noble Savage&dquo;’. Brosseau
(1995) and Sharp claim that geographers can go much further by seeking a dialogue with
literature which, rather than supplying confirming evidence, can add a destablizing
perspective on the nature of representation and reception. Using Rushdie’s The satanic
verses and its reception as an example, Sharp ( 1994; forthcoming) shows that literature not

only can force readers to grapple with questions of cultural identity and alterity but can
also be an active force in political and cultural ’geo-graphing’ of the world outside the
text.
Michael Bunce (1994) has done a great service to students of Anglo-American
landscapes by showing us how one particular set of landscape representations, the
’countryside’ ideal, has been articulated. The countryside ideal is a marvellously synthetic
work which demonstrates in detail how our taken-for-granted notions of the countryside
have evolved during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries - the same ideas cropping up
again and again in poetry, prose, children’s books, television, advertising, planning and
religion.

V The politics of landscape

One frequently reads that the cultural is the
political and, its corollary, that the cultural
landscape is political production. However, there are relatively few studies which
a
demonstrate in detail how landscapes operate as part of political life. Nuala Johnson’s
(1994) ’Sculpting heroic histories’ offers a richly textured analysis of the politics of
nationalist statuary and simultaneously of the politics of memory.
The urban historian Lynn Lees (1994) also tackles the issue of the politics of landscape
exploring, primarily within an American context, the differences between public space and
civic space and how they are used both by the state and by citizens opposed to the policies
of the state.
Kearns and Philo (1993) look at the economics and, often highly contested, politics
 420

surrounding the use of cultural resources to promote places for capital gain. To the extent
that landscapes figure prominently among these resources that attract tourists and
investment alike, this book should be of great interest to geographers wishing to place the
cultural landscape in its broader political-economic context. Their treatment of the
purposeful ’... recording of &dquo;friendly&dquo;, consensual and locally rooted cultural and
historical reference into the built environment’ (p. 25) by place marketeers may serve to
remind geographers not to celebrate uncritically the increasingly prevalent discourses of
local heritage, and what Kearns and Philo refer to as ’... bourgeois &dquo;colonization&dquo; of a
place’s past’ (p. 28).
A number of studies of colonialism devote attention to the role that landscape plays in
the process of appropriating the Other. The work of Mary Louise Pratt (1992) on vision
and landscape has spawned an interest in the role of landscape in the colonizing process. A
recent example of this is Spurr’s (1993) The rhetoric of empire: colonial discourse in journalism,
travel w?iting, and imperial administration, where he persuasively argues that the landscape is
not only a key object of colonial surveillance but also a site of fantasies of cultural
transformation. Spurr is particularly sharp when he discusses the politics of aestheticizing
the landscape. One of the most interesting refinements of the orientalist thesis to appear
over the last few years is Thomas’s (1994) Colonialism’s culture. His call to explore the
fractures within the colonialist project and the role that landscapes play in that fracturing is
of signal importance to cultural geographers.

VI Conclusion
~ z

In conclusion, I have called attention to problems arising from the conflation of different
strands within the cultural geography of landscape and also from the calls for a too easy
and happy synthesis of different traditions within the field. However, I would suggest that
there are also hopeful signs of a more critical eclecticism and increasing refinement of
theory through the mutual engagement of the various viewpoints.

References

Bermingham, A. 1994: System, order, and abstrac- Re-reading cultural geography

. Austin, TX: University
tion: the politics of English landscape drawing of Texas Press, 297-312.
around 1795. In Mitchell, W.J.T., editor, Landscape Butzer, K.W. 1994: Toward a cultural curriculum for
and power
. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, the future: a first approximation. In Foote, K.E.,
77-102. Hugill, P.J., Mathewson, K. and Smith, J., editors,
Brosseau, M. 1994: Geography’s literature. Progress in . Austin, TX: University
Re-reading cultural geography
Human Geography 18, 333-53. of Texas Press, 409-28.
— 1995: Manhattan transfer. Ecumene 2, 89-114.
Bunce, M. 1994: The countryside ideal: Anglo-American
images .of landscape London: Routledge. Cosgrove, D.E. 1984: Social formation and symbolic
Bunn, D. 1994: Our wattled cot: mercantile and . London: Croom Helm.
landscape
domestic space in Thomas Pringle’s African land- — 1992: The palladian landscape. Leicester: Leicester
scapes. In Mitchell, W.J.T., editor, Landscape and University Press.
. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,
power — 1994: Worlds of meaning: cultural geography and
127-74. the imagination. In Foote, K.E., Hugill, P.J., Math-
Burgess, J. 1994: Filming the Fens: a visual inter- ewson, K. and Smith, J., editors, Re-reading cultural
pretation of regional characters. In Foote, K.E., . Austin, TX: University of Texas Press,
geography
Hughill, P.J., Mathewson, K. and Smith, J. editors, 387-98.

Cosgrove, D. and Daniels, S. 1988: The iconography
of landscape
. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cosgrove, D.E. and Duncan, J. 1994: Editorial
introduction. Ecumene 1, 1-5.
Daniels, S. 1993: Fields of vision: landscape imagery and
national identity in England and the United States
.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
1994: Re-visioning Britain: mapping and landscape
painting, 1750-1820. In Baetjer, K., editor, Glorious
nature: British landscape painting
, 1750-1850. New
York: Hudson Hills Press, 61-72.
Daniels, S. and Cosgrove, D.E. 1993: Spectacle and
text: landscape metaphors in cultural geography. In
Duncan, J. and Ley, D., editors, Place/culture/
. London: Routledge, 57-77.
representation
Daniels, S. and Rycroft, S. 1994: Mapping the
modem city: Alan Sillitoe’s Nottingham novels.
, Institute of British Geographers NS 18,
Transactions
460-80.
Daniels, S. and Wathins, C. 1994a: Picturesque
landscaping and estate management: Uvedale Price
and Nathaniel Kent at Foxley. In Copley, S. and
Garside, P., editors, The politics of the picturesque:
, landscape and aesthetics since 1770
literature . Cam-
bridge : Cambridge University Press, 13-41.
—, editors, 1994b: The picturesque landscape: visions of
. Nottingham: Department of
Georgian Herefordshire
Geography, University of Nottingham.
Demeritt, D. 1994: The nature of metaphors in
cultural geography and environmental history. Prog-
ress in Human Geography 18, 163-85.
Duncan, J. 1990: The city as text: the politics of landscape
interpretation in the Kandyan kingdom
. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
—
1994: After the civil war: reconstructing cultural
geography as hetertopia. In Foote, K.E., Hugill, P.J.,
Mathewson, K. and Smith, J., editors, Re-reading
cultural geography
. Austin, TX: University of Texas
Press, 401-408.
Duncan, J. and Ley, D. 1993: Place/culture/
representation. London: Routledge.
Foote, K.E., Hugill, P.J., Mathewson, K. and
Smith, J., editors, 1994: Re-reading cultural geog-
. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
raphy
Helsinger, E. 1994: Turner and the representation of
England. In Mitchell, W.J.T., editor, Landscape and
. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,
power
103-26.
Henderson, G.L. 1994: Romancing the sand: con-
structions of capital and nature in arid America.
Ecumene 1, 235-56.
421
Johnson, N.C. 1994: Sculpting heroic histories: cele-
brating the centenary of the 1798 rebellion in Ire-
, Institute of British Geographers NS
land. Transactions
19, 78-93.
Kearns, G. and Philo, C., editors, 1993: Selling places:
the city as cultural capital, past and present. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Lees, L.H. 1994: Urban public space and imagined
communities in the 1980s and 1990s. Journal of
Urban History 20, 443-65.
Mikesell, M.W. 1994: Afterword: new interests,
unsolved problems, and persisting tasks. In Foote,
K.E., Hugill, P.J., Mathewson, K. and Smith, J.,
. Austin, TX:
editors, Re-reading cultural geography
University of Texas Press, 437-44.
Mitchell, D. 1994: Landscape and surplus value: the
making of the ordinary in Brentwood, CA. Environ-
ment and Planning D: Society and Space 12, 7-30.
Mitchell, W.J.T., editor, 1994: Landscape and power
.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Parsons, J.J. 1994: Cultural geography at work. In
Foote, K.E., Hugill, P.J., Mathewson, K. and Smith,
J., editors, Re-reading cultural geography. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press, 281-90.
Pratt, M.L. 1992: Imperial eyes: travel writing and
. New York: Routledge.
transculturation
Richardson, M. 1994: Looking at a world that speaks.
In Foote, K.E., Hugill, P.J., Mathewson, K. and
Smith, J., editors, Re-reading cultural geography
. Aus-
tin, TX: University of Texas Press, 156-66.
Rose, G. 1993: Feminism and geography: the limits of
. Cambridge: Polity Press.
geographical knowledge
Salter, C.L. 1994: Cultural Geography as discovery.
In Foote, K.E., Hugill, P.J., Mathewson, K. and
Smith, J., editors, Re-reading cultural geography
. Aus-
tin, TX: University of Texas Press, 429-36.
Schein, R. 1993: Representing urban America: 19th-
century views of landscape, space and power. Envi-
ronment and Planning D: Society and Space 11, 7-21.
Sharp, J.P. 1994: A topology of ’post’ nationality:
(re) mapping identity in The satanic verses
. Ecumene 1,
65-76.
— 1995: Locating imaginary homelands: literature
geography and Salmon Rushdie. GeoJournal (in
press).
Shurmer-Smith, P. 1994: Cixous’ spaces: sensuous
space in women’s writing. Ecumene 1, 349-62.
Shurmer-Smith, P. and Hannam, K. 1994: Worlds
of desire realms of power. London: Edward Arnold.
,
Smith, J. 1993: The lie that blinds: destabilizing the
422

text of landscape. In Duncan, J. and Ley, D., editors, Wagner, P.L. 1994: Foreword: culture and geography
Place/culture/representation London:
. Routledge, -

thirty years of advance. In Foote, K.E., Hugill, P.J.,

78-94. Mathewson, K. and Smith, J., editors, Re-reading
Spurr, D. 1993: The rhetoric of empire: colonial discourse cultural geography
. Austin, TX: University of Texas
, travel writing
in journalism , and imperial administra- Press, 3-8.
tion. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Wagner, P.L. and Mikesell, M.W. 1962: Readings in
cultural geography
. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Thomas, N. 1994: Colonialism’s culture: anthropology
,
travel and government
. Cambridge: Polity Press.