this human indexing’’ (Flay, 1989, p. 5). Nor, of course, can place even be identified without it.
Although there probably are as many manifestations of the sense of place as there are individuals and physical spaces, most often they convey emo- tional and moral qualities. As interpreted by the individual, ‘‘The ‘soul’ of a place is the pure, expressive meaning of a location, a concrete image that represents its quality of expressive space’’ (Walter, 1988, p. 145). Indexing spaces so that they consequently become places requires that such a space be
‘‘lived in’’ in the sense that the individual fully experiences it6and is ‘‘aware of it in the bones as well as with the head’’ (Tuan, 1975, p. 165). Thus, places have ‘‘soul.’’ Something that we take so for granted within ourselves is nonetheless a highly complex phenomenon7 for reasons that are brought together quite poignantly in the analysis by philosopher J.E. Malpas:
Placeypossesses a complex and differentiated structure made up of a set of inter- connected and interdependent components – subject and object, space and time, self and otheryThe fact that place possesses such a variously complex structure, and is capable of presenting itself in such differentiated and multiple ways, leads to an inevitable mul- tiplicity in the ways in which place can be grasped and understood; place may be viewed in terms that emphasise the concrete features of the natural landscape; that give priority to certain social or cultural features; or that emphasise place purely as experienced.
(Malpas, 1999, p. 173)
Ultimately, a geographer asserts, physical place ‘‘is ‘re-placed’ in the mind and through our sensibilities by an image of place.’’ (Pocock, 1981, p. 17).
These images can have much or little to do with reality, for they are partial and may be either exaggerated or understated. Collectively, a set of place images shared by segments of society forms a place myth (Shields, 1991, pp. 60–61). The myth can be identified – as it has been at least since antiquity – with hierarchical levels of value, usually in three positions:
upper, middle, and lower. ‘‘The high place inspires feelings of elation, dom- ination, transcendence; it is the traditional home of poetry.’’ (Lutwack, 1984, pp. 39–40). This is the level of place sense, or the image, to which many regular users of the library place assign it.
examined below, following which is a consideration of the processes involved in arousing the sense of place.
The capacity of a sense of place to encourage self-discovery and self- identity is the most widely agreed upon attribute of a sense of place, and arguably is its single greatest power, while self-identity also has assumed increasing importance in contemporary society. In his survey of the concept of global identity crisis, Wilbur Zelinsky finds use of the term ‘‘identity’’ in the social sciences to have increased about 30-fold from 1965 to 1998 (Zelinsky, 2001, p. 130), and even concludes that ‘‘The scholarly literature treating questions of contemporary personal and group identity has been growing at an alarming rate in recent years’’ (p. 147).12 Following are some assessments of the powers of place as they relate to the discovery and formation of self-identity.
Since places carry out a relevant role in the satisfaction of biological, psychological, social and cultural needs of the person in the many situations faced in his/her lifetime, they assume the function of meaningful reference points in the processes of identity definition. (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995, p. 186)
The concept of self, then, that system of thoughts and experiences which enables each one of us to regard ourselves as unique and to distinguish ourselves from others, is an integral aspect of the psychology of place. (Canter, 1977, p. 179)
The specific dependence of self-identity on particular places is an obvious consequence of the way in which self-conceptualisation and the conceptualisation of place are both interdependent elements within the same structure. Our identities are thus bound up with particular places or localities through the very structuring of subjectivity and of mental life within the overarching structure of place. (Malpas, 1999, p. 177)
Whatever its sources of explanation, this literature on the sense of place reveals several consistently recurring themes. It appears that people’s sense of both personal and cul- tural identity is intimately bound up with place identity. Loss of home or ‘losing one’s place’ may often trigger an identity crisis. (Buttimer, 1980, p. 167)
Place identity ‘‘is anchored to the particular possibility individuals have of perceiving and/or knowing that specific component of the self defined through interaction with the physical environment.’’ (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, p. 187)
ythe subjective sense of the self is defined and expressed not simply by one’s rela- tionships to other people, but also by one’s relationships to the various physical settings that define and structure day-to-day life. (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983, p. 58)
From these statements, one can infer a composite description of the sense of place as a key element in the defining of self, as follows: The conceptual- ization of place and the conceptualization of self are interdependent func- tions, both being forms of differentiation to which the sense of place provides reference points for the process of identity definition.
The second of these unusual powers of place is the triggering of imag- ination, which instills meaning and value in the conceptualized place.
Imagination identifies or differentiates the place and builds the image,9 which then reflects in the image of self. According to psychologist David Canter, ‘‘it has been argued that interactions with our surroundings are a major base for the development of conceptual systems in the first place’’
(Canter, 1977, p. 153). And psychologist Joachim Wohlwill observes that
‘‘Individuals give evidence of more or less strongly defined attitudes, values, beliefs, and affective responses relating to their environment’’ (Wohlwill, 1970, p. 304). Imagination seems to be boundless. ‘‘A marvel of economy,’’
notes a literary scholar, ‘‘the imagination may thrive on the most meager materials to make a place meaningful’’ (Lutwack, 1984, p. 33). And he explains that ‘‘Places lend themselves readily to symbolical extension because there is so little that is inherently affective in their physical prop- erties’’ (p. 35). In his inaugural address as president of the American Geographical Society several decades ago, John K. Wright chose as his subject the role of imagination in geography, and concluded with the thought that ‘‘the most fascinatingterrae incognitaeof all are those that lie within the minds and hearts of men’’ (Wright, 1947, p. 15).
Although some of what is created or captured in the imagination as an idea or a concept can be described verbally, not all of it lends itself to communication, not even internal communication. Some of it eludes the logic and clarity required of verbalization, but it is no less an entity to be reckoned with. In his work on philosophical universals, R.I. Aaron discusses the situation of having a thought or idea or concept in mind but, even so, failing to put the thoughts into words. He contends that ‘‘these thoughts or concepts must be other than the words; they are objects in the mind which can be there even if we fail to express them in words’’ (Aaron, 1952, p. 200).
Similarly, a neurologist notes that ‘‘The perceptual experience has a past and a future reference; it is selective, directive, and purpose-like, though most of these processes go on below the level of awareness’’ (Herrick, 1956, p. 349). Even when articulation can be achieved, frequently it is the case, whether inadvertent or intended, that the concept or the experience being described leads in more than one direction; it is ambiguous. A psychiatrist reminds us that ‘‘The highest form of ambiguous language we call ‘poetry.’
An ambiguous place or object leads the mind somewhere else’’ (Walter, 1988, p. 72). For a mind that is led somewhere else, there are few spaces more conducive to the free association of thoughts than the library place.
Sense of place is an excellent venue for introspection, but it also contains a strong social dimension. In their analysis of research on the social dimension
of place, a team of environmental psychologists reports that ‘‘the socio- cultural meanings associated with a setting are viewed as the ‘glue’ that binds groups to particular places’’ (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995, p. 177).
How a physical location becomes a place in the sense that it gains the psychological power to become the kind of place examined in this essay can be explained with reference to the degree of differentiation afforded it in the individual cognitive system, as James Campbell explains. ‘‘We become our- selves,’’ he says, ‘‘in large part, by a process of differentiation from various groups of others. In addition, we find the examination and fostering of this social place to be a source of self-understanding and stability’’ (Campbell, 1989, p. 68). The links between place and activity, David Canter adds, and
‘‘the expectation of finding certain people in certain places,10 all indicate how a particular physical location can have its psychological power; indeed, how it becomes a ‘place’ rather than simply a location’’ (Canter, 1977, p. 123). And more explicitly, according to Bobby Wilson, ‘‘the self can be characterized as an ontological structure which manifests itself in social space. A place-based social space is essential for some groups’ development and maintenance of self’’ (Wilson, 1980, p. 145).
Because place has a very strong social dimension, it follows that the term
‘‘placelessness,’’11which refers to the spread of standardized landscapes and designs that diminish differentiation among spaces, ‘‘signifies one aspect of the loss of meaning in the modern world’’ (Entrikin, 1991, p. 57). The spirit of reaction to the rapid standardization of space around the globe was captured several decades ago by Theodore Roszak in the phrase ‘‘Almost every place is becoming Anyplace’’ (attributed to Roszak byLutwack, 1984, p. 183).
But all individuals do not see spaces the same way, much less understand and interpret them the same way.12 Some see the library experience very positively, others negatively. They do not form the same images because the quality of spaces is determined by the subjective response of people (Lutwack, 1984, p. 35). For example, some are far more dependent on the stabilizing influence of behavior settings than others (Gallagher, 1993, p. 130). A long- time scholar in the field of humanistic geography tells us that ‘‘One person may know a place intimately after a five-year sojourn; another has lived there all his life and it is to him as unreal as the unread books on his shelf’’ (Tuan, 1975, p. 164). And a philosopher reminds us of the simple basis for these differences: that ‘‘values alter facts’’ (Bachelard, 1994, p. 100). To some extent, differing perspectives on a physical space can be understood to relate to differences that result not only from the way society is structured, but also from the very fact of its structuring. ‘‘In demonstrating
that there are differences in conceptions of placesywe are highlighting an inevitable potential for confusion and disagreement built into our existing social structure’’ (Canter, 1977, p. 138). Place differentiation is highly social and deeply rooted.
Places are neither good nor bad nor of any other quality without their human valuation. The identification of individually held values with a par- ticular location constitutes an especially significant consideration in matters of place. A neurologist notes that ‘‘The desires of men and the needs of all other creatures arise as expressions of their own inner natures, however much they may be inflected by social and other environmental conditions.
This sets the most significant criteria of value within the organism’’
(Herrick, 1956, p. 142). Value, therefore, is generated biologically. ‘‘There are impersonal standards of value, but there are no impersonal values,’’ he adds (p. 138). The impressions and memories they create correspond to the values assigned by the individual, and in turn inspire a mood, which prompts either good or bad behavior, often in the most subtle ways.13‘‘We needn’t even be consciously aware of a pleasant or unpleasant environmen- tal stimulus for it to shape our states’’ (Gallagher, 1993, p. 132). This lack of awareness of the nature and content of place differentiation stems in part from the fact that these perceptions begin in the earliest processes of so- cialization when the child is not consciously participating in the process or even aware of such perceptions (Proshansky et al., 1983, p. 63).
These revelations notwithstanding, philosopher and social and political theorist Charles Taylor observes that ‘‘The search for the self in order to come to terms with oneselfyhas become one of the fundamental themes of our modern culture’’ (Taylor, 1988, p. 316).14In that context, the power of place to define one’s own identity and to influence the imagination takes on even greater significance. This is accomplished through means that are complex, most often elusive, and not necessarily recognized by the in- dividual, as place recognition engages a process that is at once psychological (which has been addressed), physiological (which is addressed below), and metaphysical. Robert D. Sack summarizes the range of metaphysical experience.
Being in the world is being in, and constructing, this personal sense of place, with ourselves at the center. Personal place expands and contracts as our interests and actions wax and wane. And personal place moves as we move through space. In a closely knit and geographically isolated community, the contents of our personal place can be shared by others and can coincide with (or develop into) a place fixed in space and publicly recognized. But in a fragmented and dynamic society, personal place is less likely to be shared and so can appear private, idiosyncratic, and subjective. (Sack, 1992, pp. 11–12)
The social context of place is the collection of forces that operate on an individual as a result of relationships to other people and social institutions.
The context also ‘‘helps to determine the impact of the physical setting’’
(Steele, 1981, p. 15), while conversely ‘‘The physical setting also affects the impact of the social setting, rendering certain forces more or less potent’’
(p. 17). As indicated earlier, this interactive quality is among the defining characteristics of place.
Sir Russell Brain addresses in terms of knowledge the physiology of place sensing in a lecture series on ‘‘The Nature of Experience.’’ This neurologist notes that the human brain is the product of millions of years of evolu- tionary selection to achieve the capacity to react commensurately with an ever more complex physical environment.15 More specifically, he states that ‘‘the receptive function of the cerebral cortex is to provide us with a symbolical representation of the whole of the external worldyat the same time giving us similar symbolical information about our own bodies and their relationship with the external world’’ (Brain, 1959, p. 32). There is a connection between the environment and the human capacity to react to it that is real in a physical sense. A team of psychologists describes this phe- nomenon as a function of the cognitive system:
Like any other cognitive system, place-identity influences what each of us sees, thinks, and feels in our situation-to-situation transactions with the physical world. It serves as a cognitive backdrop, or perhaps better said, as a physical environment ‘data base’ against which every physical setting experience can be ‘experienced’ and responded to in some way. Broadly speaking, what is at stake is the well-being of the person. (Proshansky et al., 1983, p. 66)