Rethinking the Humanistic Approach in Geography

―　38　―

Japanese Journal of Human Geography 59-6（2007）

Rethinking the Humanistic Approach in Geography :Misunderstood Essences and Japanese Challenges

IMAZATO SatoshiOsaka University of Education

I Introduction

II Retrospect of Humanistic Approach in Japan

（1） Impact of Tuan, Relph, and Ley

（2） Geography as Subjective Space Research

（3） Misunderstood in Japan and English-Speaking Countries

III Rethinking the Methodology of Humanistic Geography

（1） Tuan’s Exploration of Universal Spatial Order

（2） Relph’s Reevaluation of Renaissance Humanism

（3） Ley’s Social Scientific Multi-Method

IV Misunderstood Essences

（1） Anti-Science

（2） Impossible Method

（3） Researching Uniqueness

（4） Redefining Humanistic Geography

V Methodological Challenges by Japanese Geographers

（1） Semiotics and Quantitative Textual Analysis

（2） Rethinking Epistemology of Space and Landscape

（3） Beyond Western Dualism

VI Conclusion

Key words : humanistic geography, subjective space, phenomenology, structuralism, epistemology of space, Western dualism

I Introduction

In 1976, Tuan’s classic work gave birth to humanistic geography with the same name1） in English-speaking countries. In the same year, both Buttimer2） and Entrikin3） used the term ‘humanistic geography （geographer）’ in articles. Two years later, Ley and Samuels4） widely expanded the contents of this approach in a work that reevaluated traditional French and German geography, offered methodological reflections on humanities literature and fieldwork, and discussed philosophical considerations on epistemological grounds. However, since the late 1980s, the term ‘humanistic geography’ has not been directly used due to criticism from cultural materialism, feminism, and postmodernism ; it has evolved into critical

Rethinking the Humanistic Approach in Geography （IMAZATO）

―　39　―

cultural-social geographies5）. Post-structural perspectives that debate identity politics, psycho-analysis, embodiment, performance, and constituted subjects must now be called ‘post-humanistic geography6）.’ In Japan, since the mid 1980s the humanistic approach has appeared in textbooks7） and has seemingly penetrated the discipline8）. The social-political constructions of ‘place’ and the ‘meaning of place’ are also clearly understood by Japanese geographers who aspire to establish critical geographies in Japan9）. The development of Japanese humanistic geography has already been briefly reviewed in English by Takeuchi

10）. In Japanese, the penetration of humanistic perspectives into studies of

natural environment and rural subsistence in cultural geography, influenced by German and American traditional cultural geography, has also been briefly reviewed by Matsumoto11） and Hisa-take12）. Problems, however, remain in humanistic geography both in Japan and English-speaking countries : key concepts and perspectives have often been misunderstood ; a common mis con cep-tion is that all geographical studies of subjective space are automatically humanistic geography. This paper, therefore, traces both the spread of misunderstandings and the original challenges in Japanese humanistic geography of the last three decades by also rethinking humanistic perspectives in English-speaking countries’ geography. It does not refer to all contributions of Japanese humanistic geography including recent post-humanistic perspectives ; instead it concen-trates on discussions of subjective space, phenomenology, structuralism, and the episte mology of space and landscape to awaken an exact understanding and to extend the possibilities of this approach. The humanistic approach can never be ‘taken-for-granted.’

II Retrospect of Humanistic Approach in Japan

（1） Impact of Tuan, Relph, and Ley In Japanese geography, as in English-speaking countries, the impact of the humanistic approaches of Tuan, Relph, and Ley has been especially remarkable. In 1979, Yamano and Takeuchi first introduced humanistic geography at Osaka City and Hitotsubashi Universities, respectively. Yamano13） accentuated Tuan’s and Relph’s works by extensively reviewing such scholars as Guelke, Wright, and Lowenthal. Takeuchi

14） focused on the works of Tuan and Butt-

imer, explaining that humanistic geography reflects a quantitative-oriented approach and concen-trates on such existential aspects as meaning, value, and human intention. Translations of humanistic geography have also flourished since the 1980s. Senda

15） edited the

Japanese translations of humanistic geography masterpieces from Tuan, Buttimer, and Pocock16）

with detailed comments on the original papers. Since the late 1980s, Tuan’s main works have been translated into Japanese by a drama historian17）, English literary scholars18）, and geographers19）. Inspired by Tuan’s humanities style and Jungian psychoanalytic concepts, Abe hypothesized the birth of an environmental perception in primitive and ancient Japan20） as well as the four ideal perspectives about natural environments in animistic, cosmological, monotheistic, and modern cultures21）. In the early 1990s, a translation of Relph’s prominent work on placelessness was also published

22）. Kamiya, who recently researched the social welfare problems of the elderly in a small

town based on Relph’s concepts of ‘insideness’ and ‘rootedness23） ,’ contributed to a translation of Relph’s work on urban landscapes24）. However, since the early 1990s, the above works of Tuan and Relph have been reconsidered. Arayama25） doubted that Tuan’s perspective still remained in the mainstream of humanistic geog-raphy by briefly reviewing the spread of cultural-social geography through English-speaking

509

―　40　―

人文地理第59巻　第 6号（2007）

countries since the 1980s. Based on constructionist and relational perspectives, Oshiro26） criticized Tuan’s and Relph’s essentialist concepts of ‘place.’ Japanese geographers began to concentrate on social geographical humanist approaches including Ley’s works. They have also encountered exciting discussions on such approaches in the translated social geographical volume of Jackson and Smith

27） as well as in Ley’s philosophical essay within the behavioral approach of Cox and

Golledge28）. The neo-classics of social geography including Ley, Buttimer, and Gregory29） were trans-lated by scholars of the Osaka City and Kyushu schools30）.

（2） Geography as Subjective Space Research In Japan during the 1980s, empirical studies inspired by humanistic approaches were also fostered. Most research topics were resident subjective spaces in rural or urban neighborhood societies. Hamatani

31） and Yamano32）, rural geographers aware of the trends and histories in the

social and cultural geography of English- and German-speaking countries, led the dissemination. Geographers born in the early 1960s followed the path of these introductory essays. For example, in their respective work, Nakashima33） and Sekido34） clarified subjective cognitions and the folk clas-sifications of village spaces by residents such as minor place names and village boundaries. Yamano’s humanistic perspective was also expanded by his students ; Shimazu35）, inspired by Ley’s social geographical perspective, adapted structuralism to abstract the spatial patterns of subjective spaces and ritual places in a hilly village, while Oshiro36） illustrated the topography of a small island based on Buttimer’s schema of “styles of living” : biosphere, socio-technosphere, and noosphere37）. Also in urban geography, many geographers, fascinated by Buttimer’s concept of “subjective social space38）” and Ley’s urban social geography, examined neighborhood districts in the Tokyo and Osaka metropolitan areas39）. On the other hand, Japanese rural geography has maintained a tradition that considers not only geographical studies but also folklore and cultural anthropological studies. The geographical approach to symbolism in Japanese rural spaces was championed by Yagi

40）, whose interest in

subjective village boundaries, funeral rite roads, and symbolic shrine rituals was inspired more by anthropological structuralism and Japanese folklore traditions than humanistic geography. Sekido’s book

41）, which focuses on the spatial cognition of mountain village peoples, also mainly

referenced Japanese folklore and traditional geography, barely acknowledging the humanistic approach. The study of Japanese folklore, began by Yanagita in the 1930s and which has adapted cultural anthropological methods, is the pursuit by the Japanese themselves of their souls reflected in their ordinary and sacred lives42）. It has fundamentally maintained its own humanistic perspective. As is generally known, the prehistory of humanistic geography can be traced to Wright and Lowenthal or to the Harvard school of history and classics before World War II

43）. Similarly, some

studies within Japanese geography before the introduction of humanistic approaches from English-speaking countries can be regarded as substantially humanistic. Actually, Japanese histor-ical geographers have researched spatial recognitions and cosmology represented in pictorial maps relatively independently from the trends of English-speaking countries44）. By 1948, Suizu45） had already overviewed the pictorial maps of primitive societies and pointed out that their emotional sketch styles, called “participation” by Lévy-Bruhl, are based on unspecialized consideration of science, art, and religion. Furthermore, based on pre- and post-World War II achievements46） as well as the IGU Kyoto meeting in 1980, the history of cartography flourished in the 1980s by focusing on such subjec-

510


―　41　―

tive geographical thought47）. An epoch-making study featured a collaboration of a study group on the pictorial maps of Katsuragawa, a medieval private estate near Kyoto. It also interpreted various medieval and early-modern maps of villages, cities, and pilgrimage places based on French and Russian semiotics that was combined with traditional methods of Japanese history : critics of the process and the social context of production and utilization ; identification of differ-entials among pictorial elements ; clarifications of their semiotic paradigm and syntagm ; and abstraction of a cosmology held by producers48）. Geographical studies on modern novels have also contributed to the diffusion of humanistic approaches in Japanese geography since the mid 1980s

49）. Spatial recognitions appearing in

premodern literature have been mainly examined by the historical geographers of the Kyoto school, most of whom did not directly refer to humanistic geographical studies. For example, Oda50）

analyzed an ancient poetry anthology compiled by Saigyō, a famous monk, and elucidated his environmental perception and sentiment along his mountaineering asceticism route. However, in the mid 1990s, Uchida51） resituated such studies of spatial perceptions and imagina-tions that appeared in historical literatures as humanistic or phenomenological approaches. He examined such ancient anthologies and chronicles as Man’yōshū （Collection for a Myriad Ages）, Nihon Shoki （Chronicles of Japan）, Kojiki （Records of Ancient Matters）, and Fudoki （regional gazetteers in the Nara period） to show the landscape perspective held by the Imperial Family

52）. Senda

53） also frequently

cited such ancient literatures in his humanistic works on landscapes. Since Kikuchi’s theoretical work in historical geography in 1977

54）, the triad of the methodolog-

ical world theorized by Prince55） has been firmly established in Japan56）. Studies focusing on one of its elements, the ‘imagined world’ or the ‘perceived world,’ are now regarded as ex post facto humanistic geography57）. Some geographers58）, however, have warned that it is difficult to demon-strate that that explanation of such past perception is correct, especially because few historical documents have survived that directly reveal spatial perceptions by people from the past. Kikuchi fueled spatial perception studies in Japanese historical geography, especially in the Tsukuba school. In 1987, however, a major revised edition of his book included many inaccurate or super-ficial descriptions of the basic concepts and perspectives of humanistic geography, phenome-nology, structuralism, and semiotics59）. His work might have unwittingly spread misunderstanding about humanistic approaches in Japanese geography circles.

（3） Misunderstood in Japan and English-Speaking Countries As the above studies elaborate, in Japan humanistic or phenomenological geography has often been narrowly perceived as the study of subjective space or spatial perception60）. In the first Japa-nese instruction of humanistic geography for undergraduate students, Yamano61） regarded it as an alternative approach to positivist geography and as subjective space research. Introductions of Buttimer’s concept of subjective social space62）, Ley’s concept of intersubjective life world

63）, and Pocock’s

geographical interpretation of literary works64） accelerated such understanding. In the early 1980s, Aoki

65） conducted the first comprehensive discussion of a phenomenological perspective in Japa-

nese geography by reviewing the French geography of ‘espace vécu’ as subjective space. Since the 1990s, other geographers have also concentrated on Husserlian phenomenology by following Takeda’s textbooks66） that mainly discussed the problems of intersubjectivity. Takeda, a literary critic, insisted that the key theme in phenomenology is clarifying the conditions of the temporary establishment of an objective image, based on the personal conviction that one’s subjective recognition is identical as the recognitions of others67）. Following Takeda’s phenome-

511

―　42　―


nology, Abe68） defined tacit values on a landscape, which are intersubjectively maintained within a social group, as a “meaning matrix” whose structure and changing processes are elucidated by interpreting various landscape “stories” : for example, myths, rumors, pictures, novels, and laws. In gender studies from a phenomenological perspective, Murata69） theoretically reconsidered how we socially construct and intersubjectively maintain the category of ‘masculinity.’ In Japanese geography, phenomenology has often been confined to narrow discussions of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. However, such subjective and intersubjective aspects of space, as Wakabayashi pointed out70）, are also key themes in behavioral geography whose methodology is based on positivist science and differs greatly from （often opposed to） humanistic geography. Published in 1985, “Historical geog-raphy of spatial perception71）” was comprised of eleven case studies, including only two articles that directly referred to humanistic approaches ; the remaining nine articles were based on behavioral geography or Japanese folklore. The work of Oguchi

72）, an historical geographer who developed a

“more humane geography” and focused on such unfavorable spaces as modern prisons, was theoretically based on behavioral geography. As these examples show, geographers can freely or arbitrarily choose their theoretical framework between humanistic and behavioral approaches in engaging in subjective space researches. Such buds of confusion have been inadvertently nurtured by many geographers. In the most influential instructions on humanistic geography for Japanese readers, Yamano73） demonstrated sketch map studies of behavioral geography, although formerly he clearly distinguished between humanistic and behavioral approaches74）. In their review article, Maida and Gatayama75） also included mental map studies of behavioral approaches in humanistic geography. As a result, some behavioral geography studies in Japan, such as a landscape architecture of a road leading to a temple76） and a sketch map study of children’s activity spaces77）, have cited humanistic literatures and described themselves as humanistic geography. The most extreme case78）, which merely includes flimsy descriptions of people’s feelings about religious activity, claimed to be a human-istic study. Nakamura79）, who also depends on Takeda’s phenomenology, utilized the phenomeno-logical concept of ‘lifeworld’ as a theoretical framework in his mental map studies. Although sketch or mental maps partially represent the lifeworld of people, is humanistic geography completely interchangeable with behavioral geography ? Moreover, even geographers in English-speaking countries have failed to clearly distinguish between humanistic and behavioral approaches. In a review of human geography after World War II, Johnston80） considered phenomenological approaches one stream of behavioral revolutions in the 1970s. In the late 1980s, the quantitative measurement of people’s estimates and their atti-tudes to urban phenomena were still expected to successfully fuse quantitative and humanistic approaches81）. Indeed, Seamon82）, an advocate of humanistic geography who concentrated on Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, precisely distinguished a phenomenological approach from a behavioral approach : the former focuses on prereflective knowledge of the body and on the whole person subsumed in the world, but the latter mechanically deals with human reactions to stimuli, frag-ments of action, and knowledge in the brain rather than in the body. However, his study, which analyzed short discourses obtained by interviews with his students, remains a rough sketch of spatial behavior. His “place ballet” hypothesis was also barely adumbrated. Although his work included many intriguing ideas, he unwittingly produced another misunderstanding that human-istic geography lacks precise evidence for scientific demonstration.

512


―　43　―

We should, therefore, point out that humanistic and phenomenological geography originally possessed more plentiful contents and profound visions than imagined by many （including self-professed） humanistic geographers. Humanistic geography is more than just the study of spatial perceptions and bodily experiences. We have to precisely reconfirm its definition by returning to the original methodologies of its three main scholars : Tuan, Relph, and Ley. These men estab-lished the most basic perspectives of humanistic geography and have greatly influenced geographical academic circles both inside and outside English-speaking countries.

III Rethinking the Methodology of Humanistic Geography

（1） Tuan’s Exploration of Universal Spatial Order Humanistic geography can be summarized by the following three common points

83） : attention to

the human spirit, including awareness, feelings, values, and thought ; respect for human creativity and free activity in social situations ; and criticism or rejection of the abstractionism and objec-tivism of positivist sciences84）. The first point mainly originates from Tuan’s thought ; the second point is clearly based on Ley’s social geographical view ; and the third point is derived from Relph’s criticism. The intellectual sources of such humanistic geography can be distinguished in two directions : humanities and social sciences85）. The former was mainly advanced by Tuan and Relph. However, their positions are quite different, sometimes in opposition to each other. This point has not been fully explored even in English-speaking countries. Tuan, the first advocate of humanistic geography, distilled the main points of his perspective in a 1974 paper86） on which he based the germination of his ideas in a 1971 paper87） : meaning given to space and human experience as its background ; spatial orientations composed of binary opposi-tions based on the human body structure ; egocentric cosmological structure of mythical space ; a sense of place by our five senses ; and intimate places of everyday care only understandable from an insider perspective. Before humanistic geography, he focused on the universality of human nature rather than the regional uniqueness of place88）. He also valued philosophy as the epistemological foundation for the geography discipline89）. Tuan90） used to be interested in the nature of human beings as distinguished from animals : the spatial characteristics of human knowledge and behavior as well as such value systems reflected in spatial constructions as religion, ethics, and philosophy. Most of his works investigated the cosmic order of the human world created by humans themselves, while some paradoxically focused on chaos91）. His themes, however, were not idealism and voluntarism ; he was clearly aware of the social constrains on human freedom92） as well as issues of class, power, and gender. Since the 1980s he has not only focused on the ‘good life’ but also, as it were, on the ‘bad life’ : invasions and violence, power and domination, exploitation and discrimination, slavery and cruelty93）. By emphasizing mothers who abuse children and female teachers who dominate male pupils, his view of women is somewhat cynical

94）, which offers a unique counterargument against

the mainstream geography of gender. As Abe argued95）

, Tuan has consistently researched various aspects of humanity. Practically, as Berque pointed out

96）, Tuan has little interest in phenomenology. In a paper whose

title includes ‘phenomenology,’ Tuan97） merely mentioned that attention to the natures of human, space, and experience is phenomenological. He was actually discussing structuralism and existen-tialism such as binary oppositions and egocentric order. Moreover, by also referring to such social science sources as developmental psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology, his

513

―　44　―


actual method was based on extensive citations from such various humanities sources as philos-ophy, the history of art and architecture, religious studies, and literature. His method faithfully inherited the basic stance of Renaissance humanism98）, which returns to classic literatures, and pursued the synthetic cultural history of the human mind. Tuan’s humanistic geography, which is the historical geography of ancient, medieval, and modern times, is basically directed to the past, not to serious social issues in the present. Humanistic geographers have often been criticized for being nostalgic and naive for focusing on the romanticized harmony of past lives and the upper classes99）. We should, however, consider a problem of historical studies : most surviving historical documents reflect the upper classes. We disagree with the criticism that paints Tuan’s approach with the brush of elitism. We should not concentrate on his apparent faults but graduate to his basic methodology for seeking the universal human nature that appears and is hidden in spaces and landscapes.

（2） Relph’s Reevaluation of Renaissance Humanism Relph’s attention to place identity

100） resembles Tuan’s concept. However, he clearly argues that

phenomenology is a methodology. For Relph, phenomenology must start from the phenomena of a directly experienced, lived world.

101） Although he cited references as frequently as Tuan, his basic

method was seeing, thinking, and describing landscapes102）. For him, ‘description’ as a method means pure sketches of observed facts, while ‘explanation’ refers to causal mechanisms and processes in scientific analytical manners103）. His geography encompassed not only science but also art104）. However, is such a direct sketch of the ‘raw facts’ truly possible ? He advocated an essentially impossible method. Relph repeatedly returned to original humanist thought and its changing history in the West

105） :

Renaissance humanism between the 14th and 16th centuries, which observed the world by human reason and intelligence, developed natural sciences, and returned to the humanities classics ; Enlightenment humanism between the 17th and 18th centuries, which completely rejected Chris-tian theology to maximize the power of human reason ; paternalistic humanism in the 19th century, which pursued the rational organization of everyday affairs for human welfare by techni-cally trained engineers and officials equipped with reason ; Marxist humanism also in the 19th century, which aimed to secure the freedom of laborers from the ideologies of a bourgeois professional class and material constraints by exercising human reason and individual actions ; and existential humanism in the 20th century, which rejected modern science and technology as alienating forces. In sum, since so many different currents coexist in humanism, they often maintain contradic-tory attitudes about God, science, and human welfare106）. Even Marxism, which has been regarded as a counter viewpoint to humanism in geography, is included under humanism’s rubric. According to Relph, although the tenets of humanism are detached observation, concern for the welfare of others, and the primacy of human over nature107）, there is no agreement about what humanism actually means108）. Therefore, we must always be conscious and reflect what is human, what is humanism, and what is humanistic geography. Another distinctive point of Relph’s approach is his intense opposition to modern Western civi-lization dominated both by natural sciences and corrupt modern humanism. He observed ordi-nary metropolitan landscapes and unmasked their inauthenticity

109）. He focused on the drastic

changes from the town landscapes of the Renaissance, which were based on human reason, to modern placeless landscapes only suitable for material comfort and technical efficiency110）. Even

514


―　45　―

though Takano111） wrote that Relph rejected all flavors of humanism, we need to emphasize that Relph actually rejected not the original Renaissance humanism based on human free thinking and reason for human welfare but the late 20th century humanism that had lost the original essence of Renaissance humanism112）. We applaud his idea of the restoration of humanity in land-scapes, although his method of ‘description’ might unfortunately have accelerated the misunder-standing of humanistic geography.

（3） Ley’s Social Scientifi c Multi-Method During the 1980s the concepts of ‘meaning of place’ and ‘place identity’ proposed by Tuan and Relph were combined with such topics as class, power, and struggle in a social scientific direc-tion. Maintaining social scientific perspectives, Ley’s humanistic approach was characterized as opposition to reductionism that denies geographical differences and focuses on people’s values reflected in landscapes113）. He complemented quantitative geography and modified humanistic geography by arguing that if geographers only use quantitative analysis, they cannot understand the implications of people’s social actions beyond statistic maps114）. He firmly opposed ‘geography without man’ in both quantitative and Marxist approaches that presuppose passive and abstracted human beings115）. For Ley and his followers, Marxism seemed to neglect the human world of meaning, to restrict human ideas to political ideology, to over-emphasize structural constrains, and to presuppose mechanistic actors116）. A passive theory of man justifies an ideology of domination and confirms such power relations117）. Ley did not, however, presuppose total freedom of action ; he considered social and physical constraints as well as problems of social struggle and power118）. He proposed a well-balanced posi-tion between humanism and Marxism119） not only by emphasizing human creativity but also such personal constrains as period, location, class, and ethnicity. His standpoint influenced Gregory’s discussion on the relationship between structure and agency120） as well as post-humanistic social geography

121）. He focused on the historical and geographical uniqueness of locality and social

contexts rather than the universality122）

. Ley also depended on Schutz’s phenomenological sociology, which insisted that researchers should suspend their assumed presuppositions about observed social phenomena, and focused on the background intersubjective meanings shared within a social group and also the constrains on personal subjectivity within groups123）. Methodologically, he started his career from a behavioral approach

124） and used quantitative analyses based on exhaustive fieldwork such as interviews and

participant observation125）. The importance of participant observation in understanding lifeworld was also recognized by Ogawa126）, a phenomenologist who praised the anthropological work of Malinowski. Ley’s style of multiple methods embraced almost all possible geography methodolo-gies and has most influenced empirical studies from humanistic perspectives in geography. However, his approach, which emphasizes the uniqueness of place and different subjective spaces within the same place while remaining close to behavioral geography, greatly differs from Tuan’s original humanistic geography. In short, fairly different stances within humanistic geography have coexisted. In addition, many critics of humanistic approaches, some of which were based on misunderstandings, have insti-gated futile controversies. Pocock

127） embraced such criticism and defended himself by enigmati-

cally insisting that the weakness of humanistic geography is also paradoxically its strength. We must, however, reject such defiance and firmly refute critics to dispel misunderstandings.

515

―　46　―


IV Misunderstood Essences

（1） Anti-Science In geography, a common understanding maintains that the humanistic approach is anti-posi-tivism or anti-science128）. Relph indeed clearly criticized （although without rejecting） positivist sciences, whose perspective is far from the human lived world, and proposed a phenomenological method as an alternative129）. Tuan’s original perspective, however, was not anti-positivist

130）. On the contrary,

he insisted that humanistic geography be built on the sciences131） by actually citing such positivist social sciences as psychology and sociology132）. Renaissance humanism, born in 14th century Italy, revolted against the decay of Christianity during the middle ages to overcome the narrow strictures of scholasticism133）. This original humanism sought to understand the cosmos using human reason and intellect : it was also the seed of modern natural science134）. The work of Galileo, a natural scientist criticized by Husserl, was based on humanism that methodologically adapted not divine doctrine but human senses as the basis of observation and verification135）. Originally, the humanistic and scientific approaches were Renaissance brothers. Tuan136） believed that geographers should not only focus on scientific maps but also on people’s knowledge based on their ordinary lives. This stance resonates with Husserlian phenomenology. Husserl was apprehensive about European academic circles in the early 20th century137）. He believed that contemporary human sciences were suffering from the illusion that the abstracted world of psychology, which is based on mathematics and natural sciences, is the only world for humans138）. He radically argued that the worldview of researchers does not represent all people’s worldviews within a society. For him, such a natural scientific attitude is simply one possible perspective of the world

139）.

Today, we encounter somewhat different situations from Husserl’s time : human and social sciences have advanced and built such successful methods as participant observation, depth interviews, and discourse analysis ; these all differ from natural scientific methods. However, especially in Europe, North America, and Japan, the number of both professionals and ordinary people studying science has greatly increased : the importance of Husserl’s anxiety has also increased and should be reflected by more people in addition to scientists. As Pickles showed

140）, phenomenology elucidates the world seen without the presuppositions of

the natural sciences. It does not reject the scientific method but aims to be the foundation of sciences. Phenomenological geography never neglects objective observable data and logical demonstration ; instead it rethinks natural scientific attitudes that view the human world with mathematical laws and seeks the fundamental epistemology of the humanities and social sciences141）. Pickles142） criticized geographers who failed to distinguish between positive science （empirical science） and positivist science （exact logical positivistic science） as well as between objective science and objec-tivism. As a result, he argued that, by mistakenly regarding phenomenology as anti-science, geographers failed to allow room for phenomenology as positive and objective science143）. Human-istic geography is surely a science.

（2） Impossible Method Phenomenology has indeed been considered the most important methodology of humanistic geography. However, phenomenological geography has also been criticized for being unable to settle on an alternative methodology because its ontology itself remains problematic144）. A main

516


―　47　―

problem is Husserlian phenomenological reduction （epoche）, which penetrates an object’s essence by suspending an observer’s presuppositions. Many geographers145）, sometimes including humanists themselves, have rejected such a method because it is in principle impossible to achieve. Daniels

146）

criticized humanistic geography by suggesting that only language as a conventional presupposi-tion can make the understanding of objects possible : it is impossible to describe pure experi-ences. In later years, Husserl focused on people’s historical backgrounds and language as the framework of recognition by discussing hermeneutics rather than phenomenology147）. As a result, since the 1990s, there has been very little discussion of the phenomenological postulate148）, except for some trials

149）.

Unfortunately, many geographers150） believe that phenomenological reduction firmly advocates the suspension of all presuppositions. Husserl

151）, however, actually imagined suspending all natural

scientific presuppositions based on mathematics. Although his descriptions sometimes imply that we must suspend all presuppositions152）, he was not referring to completely suspending （‘bracketing’ in phenomenological terms） the thinking of researchers ; instead he advocated that all sciences must ground their presuppositions on phenomenology153）. Now phenomenologists themselves conclude that completely reducing all presuppositions is impossible154）. As a possible humanistic approach, Yamano155） insisted that participant observation should just be based on phenomenology : it should not have any presuppositions ; it selects symbols appearing in the researcher’s consciousness and should intuitively recognize the essence of such symbolic data. However, it is now obvious that the scope of his ideas is impossible or extremely difficult to complete. Such geographical phenomenology, which was improved by humanistic geographers, did not overlap the original Husserlian phenomenology, according to Pickles156）. How can we develop an appropriate phenomenological method in humanistic geography ? Pickles157） pointed out that Relph’s method

158）, which describes critically observed phenomena, is not phenomenology but scientific

realism. Phenomenological geography must focus on the geographically understood and consti-tuted world

159）. For this approach, space is neither subjective nor objective : the subject’s situation

itself is spatial160）

. Such a standpoint was adopted by Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, and Schutz161） who were more interested in the everyday world than Husserl. Tuan’s perspective also resonates with Heidegger’s concept of “existential space162）” in which humans arrange objects and construct specific structure based on their own interests to develop intimate feelings to the space. On the other hand, Schutz’s phenomenological sociology has received attention from social geographers163）. ‘Lifeworld,’ his key concept, refers to the everyday world that is ‘taken-for-granted’ and inherited within a society

164）. However, in its original Husserlian use, ‘lifeworld’ not only refers

to the everyday world but also to the basic world filled with both scientific and ordinary presup-positions165）. One possible source of such confusion between ‘lifeworld’ and ‘everyday world

166）’ can be

ascribed to Wagner, the editor of Schutz’s posthumous book, who combined these two concepts in the same glossary entry167）. Rather, lifeworld is the basis for philosophical considerations in which researchers themselves reflect on the naturalized objects that exist prior to all academic practices168）. As Abe objected

169）, phenomenological geographers should not only reexamine everyday

life but also their own common sense backgrounds. Phenomenological geographers should, therefore, tentatively suspend their natural scientific attitude to focus on the human world of natural attitudes. Geographers must sympathize with people’s taken-for-granted world to understand a primarily constructed existential world inter-preted by the people themselves170）. Detached from this primary world, geographers analyze it in social scientific manners to present a secondarily constructed world interpreted by geographers171）.

517

―　48　―


Phenomenological geography does not directly describe people’s pure experiences but shows approximate ideal types in the Weberian sense172）. The common understanding, derived from Relph’s standpoint, that the humanistic geographical method just directly describes phenomena173） is therefore inappropriate. Phenomenological or humanistic geography is a possible method to be practiced.

（3） Researching Uniqueness Furthermore, humanistic geography has often been understood as emphasizing the uniqueness of place and rejecting universal laws174）. According to the criticism175）, focusing on individual subjec-tive experience has little validity in findings. Ley indeed respects the uniqueness of place, while Tuan has consistently pursued the universality or general essence of human intelligence reflected in the spatial constructions of various cultures beyond regions and periods

176） by comparing the

characteristics of each culture177）. In his review article, Yamano178） also clearly pointed out that humanistic geography should be developed as universality- and abstraction-oriented studies. Originally, phenomenology dealt with the universal nature of phenomena, as Pickles noted

179）. The

Husserlian concept of “a priori” refers not to the transcendental in Kantian philosophy but to the essential or universal

180） ; that is, the unchanging structure that appears after eliminating each indi-

vidual element from the phenomena181）. We should not misunderstand the Husserlian term ‘tran-scendence.’ According to Tani

182）, it means that objects, believed to exist outside of us, are actually

constituted inside of us and cannot be grasped beyond our filter of recognitions and representa-tions. In the Husserlian sense, transcendental means that we reflect such phenomena by returning to moments of our constitution. We can, therefore, assert that Husserl is also a fore-runner of constructionism in today’s social sciences. Another criticism claimed that based on phenomenological insight, humanistic geography is unscientific since it is incapable of producing generalizations beyond a researcher’s unique and subjective opinions183）. Such criticism is partially ascribed to phenomenological geographers them-selves, as shown in the attack by Daniels

184）. As a basis for the validity of the generalization by a

phenomenological approach that intensively focuses on the personal, inner world, Seamon185） showed that one person’s unique situation speaks for the human situation at large and that each human shares common characteristics of the bodies of all humans. Can humanistic geographers complete case studies by examining only one sample, even of the researcher her / himself ? In the Japanese case, as case studies of his own phenomenological geography, Nakamura’s recent work

186） includes his travel essays on day excursions, domestic trips, and studying abroad.

This perspective, which emphasizes researcher’s personal experiences differs starkly from phenomenology, which understands others （if indirectly the self） and focuses on general essences. If we accept his stance, a layman could easily practice academic geography, and talented writers might surpass geographers. Humanistic geography originally sought universal characteristics in positive manners.

（4） Redefi ning Humanistic Geography Citing Barnes in the 5th and 6th editions of their influential textbook, Johnston and Sidaway187） summarized four characteristics of spatial science that adhered to the 17th century’s Enlighten-ment ideal : progress through the power of reason, sovereign and self-consciously directed indi-viduals, human ability of finding order in the world, and the existence of universal truth. According to them, humanistic geographers reject all four points by negating progress and

518


―　49　―

reason, emphasizing individuals shaped by outside factors, rejecting monolithic order, and stressing local social practices. Ley’s standpoint is indeed suitable for the third and fourth points ; Tuan’s humanistic geography, however, comes under all four characteristics of spatial science. Moreover, Barnes’ original text188） never actually claimed such an opinion : he mentioned not humanistic geographers but anti-Enlightenment philosophers and poststructuralists as oppo-nents of Enlightenment principles. Johnston and Sidaway unintentionally accelerated deep-rooted misunderstandings of humanistic geography. As mentioned above, Relph’s actual method was substantially impossible and not humanistic, and Ley’s basic method was rather quantitative and a uniqueness-oriented behavioral geography, although he theoretically embraced Schutz’s scheme, which is an insightful base of qualitative social science. Therefore, without overlooking the original perspectives of Tuan, Husserl, and Schutz, we clarified that the following four points are the essential definitions of humanistic and phenomenological geography : understanding intersubjective existential space or its representa-tions such as pictorial maps and literary works ; focusing on the universality of human reason and the senses that appear or are hidden in space and landscape ; using such qualitative methods that consider insider views as the textual analysis of humanities materials and fieldworks ; and maintaining serious philosophical reflections on the methodology of human sciences including the definitions of human and humanity. Humanistic geographers should research not the natural scientific order based on outsiders’ objectivism but the world’s subjective order based on researched insiders’ values. However, it is neither an anti-science nor a solely impressionistic critique : it is a positive （although not exact logical positivistic） science. From the outset, humanistic geography was denounced by both critics and advocates for its lack of a clearly defined methodology189）. One harsh criticism claimed that humanistic geography unsuccessfully competed with other approaches within geography and ultimately failed to stimu-late a major switch in the discipline190）. However, from the viewpoint of our new definitions of humanistic geography, Japanese geographers have not been idle during the progress of human-istic approaches.

V Methodological Challenges by Japanese Geographers

（1） Semiotics and Quantitative Textual Analysis During the 1970s, structuralism was eagerly discussed among English-speaking countries geog-raphers. However, they merely adapted structural Marxism191）, while linguistic structuralism was abandoned as inappropriate in historical geography that focuses on specific concrete events and the ‘base structure’ of former times192）. However, prior to advocating humanistic geography, Tuan193） paid attention to linguistic structuralism to clarify how people order and perceive their lived world. Unfortunately, such linguistic structuralism has not been developed, and it has been assumed to be merely a possible method in geography194）. When briefly citing Piaget and Lévi-Strauss, Hay195） actually examined such Marxist topics as urban rent systems. In contrast, Japanese geographers benefited from numerous translations into Japanese and introductions of French semiotics, concentrating on the linguistic structuralism of Saussure and Lévi-Strauss196）. They often applied structuralism to case studies of existential spaces such as tradi-tional village spaces197）. Some geographers198） have pointed out that structuralism, as a positive science, is epistemologically irreconcilable with humanistic geography, which is regarded as anti-science. However, as repeatedly demonstrated above, humanistic geography was originally a positive

519

―　50　―


science, so it can include structuralism as a useful method. During the 1980s, the historical geographers of the Kyoto school focused on Saussurian linguistic structuralism and semiotics

199）. Senda

200） introduced Saussurian semiotics to the morphology

of ancient Japanese cities, basin villages, and European castle cities as ‘text’ and abstracted the mandala pattern, which in Jungian psychoanalysis is supposedly buried in the deep mind

201）, as

langue composed of pure geometrical points, lines, and squares. He gained qualitative general-ization by opposing both uniqueness-oriented humanistic approaches and quantitative-oriented spatial sciences. However, Japanese geographers have not always exactly understood the key concepts and perspectives of semiotics and linguistic structuralism202）. For example, Aoki

203） systemati-

cally introduced the structuralist regional geography of the French school led by Brunet ; it is, however, not actually a structuralist but rather a system theory approach. Japanese humanistic geographers, such as the above-mentioned Abe and Senda, have often followed the Jungian concept of deep structure. Inspired by Jungian psychoanalysis as well as Pocock and Porteous’s sensuous geography

204）, Sasaki

205） elucidated the deep spatial structure of the

mind hidden in Japanese folktales and the ‘sense of place’ of traditional village people whose perspective of nature differs from Western people and modern Japanese. Such a Jungian concept, however, referred to human unconsciousness, which cannot be tangibly observed and verified by the criterions of positive science. We must regard the deep structure of existential spaces not as human unconsciousness but as logical systems in the human brain such as folk classifications that can be explained not by psychoanalysts but by cultural anthropologists and folk geogra-phers. Yamano206） and Kushiya

207） respectively suggested Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism as an actual method in

humanistic geography or the semantics of space. Geographers, however, should not solely imitate cultural anthropology. Imazato208） criticized cultural anthropological and semiotic studies on Japa-nese village spaces and defined his own semiotic framework that conceptually and spatially synthesized various folk spatial classifications, including land-use zones, social spaces, symbolic boundaries, place, and orientations. Spatial classification systems articulate the environment based on human subjective values to produce cosmic order from chaos209）. Such ethno-scientific articulations of existential space are the a priori of the lifeworld in the Husserlian sense210）. From phenomenological viewpoints, all human worlds are subjectively articulated and ordered

211）.

Besides the semiotic analysis of spaces, Japanese geographers have also improved the textual analysis of landscape representations. Takinami

212） analyzed various unique landscape represen-

tations, including readers’ travel writings from tourism magazines, trial documents of a court-room controversy over the preservation of a traditional stone bridge, and essays with drawings composed by primary school pupils. He is always conscious of the semiotic idea of binary oppo-sitions : Eastern Japan and Western France ; plaintiff and defendant ; urban and mountain village children. He also analyzed the pictorial brochures of hotels in Geneva and comments from their managers to classify the strategic ‘ambience’ created by each hotel

213）. In particular, Takinami

combined qualitative textual analysis with a quantitative method in the analysis of a French tourism guidebook

214）. Using the factor analysis of frequently used words that express spatiality in

the guidebook’s discourses on all quarters in Paris, he classified them into image groups and, with a sort of MDS, ultimately into two types : ‘ambience’ and ‘monument.’ His valuable works extended the possibilities and raised the objectivity of textual analysis in humanistic geography.

520


―　51　―

（2） Rethinking Epistemology of Space and Landscape Japanese geographers have contributed not only to analytical methods but also to the episte-mology of space and landscape for humanistic approaches. By featuring three elements （subject, object, and space）, Ohji

215） showed four types of epistemology of space for geographers, which he

divided into levels of understanding and explanation. The former level refers to the experience of an inseparable merger of subject, object, and space. According to him, this is just a phenomeno-logical geography approach. The latter level of explanation was further divided into three sub-levels. The first is spatial absolutism or spatial separatism216）, which argues that space is ontologically separable and can exist independently from both subject and object : it has been supported by regional and quantitative geography. Both approaches stand on the same epistemology, as Ohji pointed out, so the quanti-tative revolution in geography was not actually a revolution. The second is Hinckfuss’s spatial relativism217）, which believes that space is separable from subject and object, but the characteristics of space can be reduced to object ; it has been adapted by Marxist geographers, who insist that spatial explanations of regional inequality should be reduced to object explanations of class rela-tionships. Ohji proposed that the true revolution in geography should be described as jumping from quantitative to Marxist geography. The third standpoint insists that space can be displaced by the relationship between subject and object ; existential geography grasps the experience of space as the involvement of subject into object. Although Ohji’s discussion is indeed highly original, it also includes an unclear point : he did not clearly distinguish between subjects as researcher and researched. We point out another problem : he proposed that phenomenological and existential approaches are epistemologically quite different from each other. For him, humanistic geography includes fundamentally different standpoints. However, phenomenological geography originally did not aim to directly describe the subject’s whole experience but to explain subjectively ordered spaces in the objective manner of positive science. Thus, phenomenological geography actually stands on the fourth type of spatial epistemology : it is identical as existential geography. Rethinking the concept of ‘landscape,’ which is based on modern Western thought, has also been a key topic in Japanese humanistic geography. Since the 1980s, it has distinguished “fūkei” （scenery）, which is sometimes based on Eastern epistemology and emphasizes the subjective aspect of the viewer, from “keikan” （landscape / area or Landschaft）, which is based on Western scien-tific thinking and focuses on the objective aspect of the landscape viewed

218）.

Senda219）

argued that landscape represented as topographical maps in geographical papers is never seen by the people living on the ground. He focused on fūkei （scenery）, which is subjectively seen by the naked eye in the everyday world, and liberated geographers from fixed thinking with scientific abstracted maps. He argued that ordinary people do not grasp their region as the geometric system of a central place theory by living in a space filled with plentiful meanings220）. His viewpoint thus echoes Tuan’s humanistic perspective and Husserlian phenomenology. For him, landscape is felt with the five senses, memorized, and subjectively represented. Senda stood on constructionism and insisted that “what is landscape” depends on the situations of both the period and the place. In addition, Senda

221） radically attacked Japanese geographers who have uncritically imported

concepts and methods from Western geography since the rise of Japan’s modernization and Westernization in the late 19th century. He insisted that modern European geography, both the environmental determinism of Ratzel and the environmental possibilism of Vidal de la Blache,

521

―　52　―


was erected on the Cartesian dualism of ‘nature’ as object and ‘culture’ centered on humans. He categorized such modern Western thought as merely anthropocentric or humanistic in which humans had escaped from God. In contrast, the traditional Japanese viewpoint does not distin-guish between ‘nature’ inhabited by numerous gods as cultural controllers and ‘culture222）.’ As a result, Senda revaluated Eastern religious thought. Western geographical thought, such as the central place theory and landscape ecology, categorized spatial units in a hierarchical scale. However, for people who live in the smallest unit of the settlement, their place is precisely the center of the world

223）. He applied a Buddhist cosmology, “One is all, all is one” : a place on earth is

linked to its whole surface, and the whole is even contained in the smallest place224）. Uchida was also interested in Eastern thought. He dealt with the work of Hayao Miyazaki, the most famous animation director in Japan225）. According to Uchida, the original film of Miyazaki’s work, based on a traditional Eastern view, focused on the contradiction between ‘human’ and ‘nature’ in a Western sense, while a revised comic version did not clearly distinguish between them. In the changing process of motives within the same work, Uchida found the ambiguous attitude of contemporary Japanese to nature between the East and the West.

（3） Beyond Western Dualism Moreover, some geographers have sought non-scientific elements within traditional Western geography. Yamano226）, also a historian of German geography

227）, found the phenomenological method

in the physiognomy of Humboldt. Humboldt combined rational perception with emotion as well as scientific observation with an artistic sensibility to abstract the ideal model, which in Goethe’s sense is hidden in the Gestalt appearance. Yamano228） also noticed that Humboldt’s way of seeing resembled the thinking patterns of painters and children. A person does not clearly distinguish between ‘subject’ as self and ‘object’ observed, but rather by emotionally grasping landscapes. As a primitive style of knowledge, such an emotional perspective is still buried deeply in the minds of people today dominated by scientific thinking. Based on Lévy-Bruhl’s concept of ‘participation,’ Yamano hypothe sized that each degree of penetration of mythical and scientific thinking into the everyday world influences our natural attitudes229）. Further radical discussion was presented by Matsumoto

230）, who pointed out that the only method

that humanistic geographers can actually adopt is the understanding and the realization of people’s experienced worlds with the researcher’s own body and feeling. He insisted that under-standing through language is merely the over-specialized thinking style in Western science and culture that overly emphasizes human rationality and intelligence231）. Matsumoto

232） argued that over-

dependence on language cannot fully grasp the essence of a lifeworld composed of feelings, emotions, and passions. He sought to blur or diminish the dual distinction between ‘self as subject’ and ‘others as objects.’ Ironically however, he must rely on people’s language as research materials and on his own language to present his research results. The essence of the thoughts of Yamano and Matsumoto can be ascribed to one scholar, Iwata, their teacher at Osaka City University, who has been a cultural geographer / anthropologist of Southeast Asia, which he regarded as the birthplace of Japanese traditional culture. He was inspired by Humboldt’s idea of ‘cosmos’ and medieval Japanese Buddhist priests

233）. From his under-

graduate days, he has also been fascinated by Humboldt’s physiognomy that reads the essence of the cosmos and the motif of landscape234）. Iwata’s methodology was the most radical among Japanese geographers. He physically feels gods in nature ; he moves, jumps, and sits as native people, animals, and plants do. He himself

522


―　53　―

becomes a fish, a tree, and even the ground235）

. For him, a village space is a sacred cosmos in which numerous animistic gods inhabit all objects : hills, insects, birds, cats, humans, farm tools, and rice plants

236）. Each of these objects is a micro cosmos. A tree is also an aesthetically ordered

cosmos on and around which numerous animals and plants live and die. The geographer medi-tates at the foot of this tree to realize the essence of the whole world

237）. In the tree as a cosmos,

the whole cosmos is also embodied and expressed : the mandala cosmos in Buddhism238）. Iwata’s views fundamentally differ from Western thought, which clearly distinguishes between ‘human’ and ‘nature.’ He believes that all things are ontologically equal and interrelated, as Buddhism preaches. His methodology remains, however, theoretical and presents difficulty to be practiced as a positive science, except by himself. Watanabe, a cultural anthropologist who in the 1970s already advocated ‘cognitive geography’ that focused on the folk geographical knowledge of local peoples

239）, also insisted that ‘human’ and

‘nature’ are ontologically inseparable from the viewpoint of feng-shui, a folk geographical view in East Asia including China, Korea, and Japan240）. His perspective, which is not based on a natural scientific view of environment, can be regarded as just a phenomenological geographical approach. The philosophies of Iwata and Watanabe are radical critiques not only of modern Western geography but also of the sciences themselves. Such viewpoints, which do not ontologi-cally separate subject as human and object as nature, share points of discussion with a natural-cultural ‘climate’ （fūdo）. Maida and Gatayama241） traced Japanese discussions since the late 19th century on such climates by Shiga, Watsuji, Suzuki, and Berque to critically overcome the Western dualisms of human-nature and of subject-object based on anthropocentrism.

VI Conclusion

In Japanese geography, humanistic studies have grown since the 1980s : active translations of masterpieces, examining subjective social spaces and symbolic places in villages and cities, exploring spatial recognitions represented in pictorial maps and literary works, and applications of Husserlian （in fact Takeda’s） phenomenology as a theoretical framework. Especially in rural and historical geography, such case studies have maintained their own perspectives, coincidently encountering contemporary trends in English-speaking countries. However, both in Japan and English-speaking countries, humanistic geography, which has often been regarded as merely the study of subjective space or spatial perception, is confused with behavioral geography. Most adherents of humanistic approaches have neither critically succeeded to nor profoundly under-stood the methodology and philosophy of the approach. Methodologically, humanistic geography originated from three different standpoints. Tuan’s original perspective focused on the universality of existential spatial order based on the human mind and body. It substantially shared basic perspectives with Husserl and practically referred to the literatures of the humanities and the social sciences. Without actually embracing phenome-nology, Relph’s critical standpoint commented on the contemporary urban landscape to restore Renaissance humanism. Ley’s multi-method approach grasped human creativity and social constrains within a unique locality beyond statistical maps. Although it theoretically focused on Schutz’s phenomenology of the everyday world that is investigated with intensive fieldwork, its actual basic methodology was behavioral geography. Respecting Tuan’s, Husserl’s, and Schutz’s original perspectives, we conclude that humanistic and phenomenological geography must fully consider the following four points : intersubjective

523

―　54　―


order in human existential space or its representations ; universality of human reason and the senses ; utilization of humanities or fieldwork materials considering inside humans’ views ; and philosophical reflections on the methodology of human sciences. It is a positive science and a reflection of natural scientific views that seeks qualitative general essences. However, excellent empirical studies bearing these four points in mind have been insufficiently developed in Japa-nese geography. Based on these four conditions, however, we also conclude that Japanese geographers have methodologically contributed to humanistic geography : ethno-scientific applications of semiotics to settlement spaces, progress in systematic objective methods of textual analysis, rethinking the epistemology of space and landscape in existing geographical approaches including humanistic geography, and theoretically rethinking overly objectivistic, Western concepts of landscape and nature. Moreover, we recognize that Japanese ‘geographical philosophers’ have radically discussed the researcher’s own body and senses, exceeding Western dualism and ultimately modern sciences. However, most approaches remain theoretical considerations and wishful thinking. In the future, Japanese geographers must produce an alternative geography, both theoretically and empirically, that fundamentally differs from Western geography and perhaps even Western sciences.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by grants-in-aid from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences （No. 19720219 and No. 18320136）. I am sincerely grateful to Professors Masahiko Yamano, Hiroyuki Matsumoto, and Tetsuya Hisatake for their stimulating lectures and discussions. I also appreciate Professors Akihiko Takagi and Akio Onjo for their organization of the above latter research project.

Notes1） Tuan, Y-F., ‘Humanistic geography,’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 66, 1976, p. 266.2） Buttimer, A., ‘Grasping the dynamism of lifeworld,’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 66, 1976,

p. 277.3） Entrikin, J. N., ‘Contemporary humanism in geography,’ Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 66,

1976, p. 615.4） Ley, D. and Samuels, M. S. eds., Humanistic Geography : Prospects and Problems, Croom Helm, 1978. 5）（1） Adams, P. C., Hoelscher, S. and Till, K. E. eds., Textures of Place : Exploring Humanist Geographies, University

of Minnesota Press, 2001, pp. xv-xxii. （2） Yamano, M., ‘A note on possibilities of landscape study : under the infl u-ence of “cultural turn”,’ Studies in the Humanities （Osaka City Univ.）, 53-3, 2001, pp. 136-139. （J）（3） Johnston, R. J. and Sidaway, J. D., Geography & Geographers : Anglo-American Human Geography since 1945, 6th edition, Arnold, 2004, pp. 280-292.

6） Benko, G. and Strohmayer, U., Human Geography : A History for the 21st Century, Arnold, 2004, p. 136.7）（1） Yamano, M., ‘Humanistic geography’ （Sakamoto, H. and Hamatani, M. eds., Saikin no Chirigaku （Recent

Trends in Geography）, Taimeidō, 1985）, pp. 238-246. （J）（2） Takahashi, N. et al., Bunka Chirigaku Nyūmon （Intro-duction to Cultural Geography）, Tōyō Shorin, 1995, pp. 159-185. （J）

8）（1） Arizono, S. et al. eds., Rekishichiri Chōsa Handobokku （Research Handbook of Historical Geography）, Kokon Shoin, 2001, p. 5. (J）（2） Ueno, K., Tsubaki, M. and Nakamura, Y. eds., Chirigaku Gairon （Introduction to Geogra-phy）, Asakura Shoten, 2007, p. 6. （J）

9）（1） Oshiro, N., ‘Social and historical aspects of landscape : focused upon ritual facilities in an Okinawan rural set-tlement,’ Th e Historical Geography, 159, 1992, pp. 2-20. （JE）. （2） Onjo, A., ‘Meaning and power of place’ （Arayama, M. and Oshiro, N. eds., Kūkan kara Basho e （From Space to Place）, Kokon Shoin, 1998）, pp. 226-236. （J）

10） Takeuchi, K., Modern Japanese Geography : An Intellectual History, Kokon Shoin, 2000, pp. 185-188, pp. 209-211.11） Matsumoto, H., ‘Environment and recognition,’ （Oshima, J., Ukita, T. and Sasaki, K. eds., Bunka Chirigaku （Cul-

tural Geography）, Kokon Shoin, 1989）, pp. 131-136. （J）12） Hisatake, T., Bunka Chirigaku no Keifu （Genealogy of Cultural Geography）, Chijin Shobō, 2000, pp. 544-570. （J）13） Yamano, M., ‘Contemporary human geography : humanistic perspective and spatial morphology,’ Human Geogra-

524


―　55　―

phy, 31, 1979, pp. 46-68. （J）14） Takeuchi, K., ‘Th e position of social geography : a consideration on the so-called subjective geography,’ Th e Hitot-

subashi Review, 81, 1979, pp. 653-667. （J）15） Senda, M. ed., Chizu no Kanata ni （Beyond the Maps）, Chijin Shobō, 1981. （J）16）（1） Tuan, Y-F., ‘Sight and pictures,’ Geographical Review, 69, 1979, pp. 413-422. （2） Buttimer, op. cit., 2）. （3） Po-

cock, D., ‘Th e novelist’s image of the North,’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, N. S. 4, 1979, pp. 62-76.

17）（1） Tuan, Y-F., translated by Yamamoto, H., Kūkan no Keiken （Space and Place）, Chikuma Shobō, 1988. （J）（2） Tuan, Y-F., translated by Yamamoto, H., Morarityi to Sōzōryoku no Bunkashi （Morality and Imagination）, Chikuma Shobō, 1991. （J）

18）（1） Tuan, Y-F., translated by Kataoka, S. and Kim, I., Ai to Shihai no Hakubutsushi （Dominance and Aff ection）, Kōsakusha, 1988. （J）（2） Tuan, Y-F., translated by Kim, I., Kyofu no Hakubutsushi （Landscape of Fear）, Kōsakusha, 1991. （J）

19）（1） Tuan, Y-F., translated by Ono, Y. and Abe, H., Topophilia, Serika Shobō, 1992. （J）（2） Tuan, Y-F., translated by Abe, H., Kojin Kūkan no Tanjō （Segmented Worlds and Self）, Serika Shobō, 1993. （J）（3） Tuan, Y-F., translated by Abe, H., Kankaku no Sekai （Passing Strange and Wonderful）, Serika Shobō, 1994. （J）（4） Tuan, Y-F., translated by Abe, H., Kosumoporitan no Kūkan （Cosmos and Hearth）, Serika Shobō, 1997. （J）

20） Abe, H., Nihon Kūkan no Tanjō （Th e Birth of Japanese Space）, Serika Shobō, 1995. （J）21） Abe, H., Kūkan no Hikaku Bunkashi （A Comparative Study on Culture of Spaces）, Serika Shobō, 2001. （J）22） Relph, E., translated by Takano, T., Abe, T. and Ishiyama, M., Basho no Genshōgaku （Place and Placelessness）,

Chikuma Shobō, 1991. （J）23） Tahara, Y. and Kamiya, H., ‘Attachment of the elderly to their home places fostered by their insideness : a case

study of Kamioka Town, Gifu Prefecture,’ Human Geography, 54, 2002, pp. 209-230. （JE）24） Relph, E., translated by Takano, T., Kamiya, H. and Iwase, H., Toshi Keikan no Nijusseiki （Th e Modern Urban

Landscape）, Chikuma Shobō, 1999. （J）25） Oshiro, N., Niwa, H., Arayama, M. and Nagao, K., ‘On some topics appeared in current textbooks of British hu-

man geography,’ Geographical Sciences, 48, 1993, p. 92. （J）26） Oshiro, N., ‘Cemeteries and sense of place : a preparatory note for reading the Okinawan landscape,’ Geographical

Review of Japan, 67A, 1994, pp. 170-173. （JE）27） Jackson, P. and Smith, S. J., translated by Hamatani, M., Shakai Chirigaku no Tanken （Exploring Social Geogra-

phy）, Taimeidō, 1991. （J）28） Ley, D., ‘Behavioral geography and the philosophies of meaning’ （Cox, K. and Golledge, R. eds., translated by Ter-

asaka, A. et al., Kūkan to Kōdōron （Behavioral Problems in Geography Revisited）, Chijin Shobō, 1986）, pp. 241-265. （J）

29）（1） Ley, D., ‘Social geography and the taken-for-granted world,’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, N. S. 2, 1977, pp. 498-512. （2） Buttimer, A., ‘Social space in interdisciplinary perspective,’ Geographical Review, 59, 1969, pp. 417-426. （3） Gregory, D., ‘Human agency and human geography,’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, N. S. 6, 1981, pp. 1-18.

30） Study Group of ‘Space and Society’ in the Association of Japanese Geographers, ed., Shakai-Kūkan Kenkyū no Chihei （Horizon in Socio-Spatial Studies）, Osaka City University, 1996. （J）

31） Hamatani, M., Nihon Sonraku no Shakai Chiri （Social Geography of Japanese Villages）, Kokon Shoin, 1988, p. 63. （J）32） Yamano, M., ‘Cultural geography of the village’ （Oshima, J., Ukita, T. and Sasaki, K. eds., Bunka Chirigaku, Kokon

Shoin, 1989）, pp. 297-298. （J）33） Nakashima, K., ‘Traditional utilization of environment at the foot of Mt. Sefuri : through the subjective division of

environment,’ Human Geography, 38, 1986, pp. 41-55. （J）34） Sekido, A., ‘A study of the spatial organization of villages and the spatial cognition of villagers in the western part

of Owari area,’ Human Geography, 39, 1987, pp. 461-472. （J）35） Shimazu, T., ‘Social space and nonprofane places in a Japanese village,’ Human Geography, 41, 1989, pp. 195-215. （JE）

36） Oshiro, N., ‘Geographical personality of settlement in a subtropical island : Kohama, Okinawa,’ Human Geography, 42, 1990, pp. 220-238. （JE）

37） Buttimer, A., ‘Charism and context : the challenge of la géographie humaine’ （Ley, D. and Samuels, M. S. eds., Hu-manistic Geography : Prospects and Problems, Croom Helm, 1978）, pp. 67-69.

38） Buttimer, op. cit., 29）（2）.39）（1） Onjo, A., ‘Th e spatial structure of a suburban resident’s neighborhood : a case study of Yōkōdai in Yokohama,’

Human Geography, 40, 1988, pp. 273-285. （J）（2） Niwa, H., ‘An urban social geography of the homeless in Osaka, Japan,’ Human Geography, 44, 1992, pp. 545-564. （JE）（3） Hara, S., ‘Social network and social space : the assimila-

525

―　56　―


tion process of residents in Mozu-umekita-cho, Sakai City, Osaka metropolitan area,’ Geographical Review of Japan, 67A, 1994, pp. 701-722. （JE）

40） Yagi, Y., Minzoku Sonraku no Kūkan Kōzō （Th e Spatial Structure of Folk Village）, Iwata Shoin, 1998. （J）41） Sekido, A., Sonraku Shakai no Kūkan Kōsei to Chiiki Hen’yo （Spatial Formation and Regional Changes of Rural

Communities）, Taimeidō, 2000. （J）42） Kuwayama, T., Native Anthropology : Th e Japanese Challenge to Western Academic Hegemony, Trans Pacifi c Press,

2004, pp. 64-86.43） Koelsch, W. A., ‘William H. Tillinghast, John K. Wright, and some antecedents of American humanistic geogra-

phy,’ Journal of Historical Geography, 29, 2003, pp. 618-630.44） Onodera, A., Kinsei Kasen Ezu no Kenkyū （A Study on the Early-Modern Maps of Rivers）, Kokon Shoin, 1991, pp.

6-7. （J）45） Suizu, I., ‘On primitive peoples’ maps,’ Nihonshi Kenkyū （Journal of Japanese History）, 7, 1948, pp. 234-247. （J）46） Unno, K., ‘Cartography in Japan’ （Harley, J. B. and Woodward, D. eds., Th e History of Cartography : vol. 2-2, Th e

University of Chicago Press, 1994）, pp. 346-477.47） Takeuchi, K. and Nozawa, H., ‘Recent trends in studies on the history of geographical thought in Japan,’ Geograph-

ical Review of Japan, 61B, 1988, pp. 59-73.48） Katsuragawa Ezu Kenkyūkai, ed., Ezu no Kosumoroji : vol. 1 （Cosmology of Pictorial Maps）, Chijin Shobō, 1988,

pp. 11-47. （J）49）（1） Aoyama, H., ‘Th e image of places in a literary work,’ Notes on Th eoretical Geography, 4, 1985, pp. 37-44. （J）（2）

Uchida, Y., ‘On a fi xation of “an upper-class summer resort” image in Karuizawa,’ Geographical Review of Japan, 62A, 1989, pp. 495-512. （JE）（3） Fukuda, T., ‘Th e experience of place in the novels of Hayashi Fumiko,’ Human Ge-ography, 43, 1991, pp. 269-281. （J）

50） Oda, M., ‘Th e structure of sacred mountain areas Ōmine as refl ected in the Sankashū,’ Th e Shirin （Journal of His-tory）, 70, 1987, pp. 453-478. （J）

51） Uchida, T., ‘Imaginations on places : the landscape of “province” in ancient narratives,’ （Sugiura, Y. ed., Bungaku, Hito, Chiiki （Literature, Man, and Region）, Kokon Shoin, 1995）, p. 51. （J）

52） Uchida, T., ‘A study about kunimi in ancient Japan,’ Human Geography, 37, 1985, pp. 365-373. （J）53）（1） Senda, M., Kodai Nihon no Rekishi Chirigakuteki Kenkyū （Historical Geographical Studies of Ancient Japan）,

Iwanami Shoten, 1991, pp. 203-270. （J）（2） Senda, M., Fūkei no Kōkogaku （Archeology of Landscape）, Chijin Shobō, 1996. （J）

54） Kikuchi, T., Rekishi Chirigaku Hōhō’ron （Methodologies of Historical Geography）, Taimeidō, 1977, pp. 110-111. （J）55） Prince, H. C., ‘Real, imagined and abstract worlds of the past,’ Progress in Geography, 3, 1971, pp. 1-86.56） Senda, op. cit., 15）, pp. 20-22. 57）（1） Kinda, A., ‘Some traditions and methodologies of Japanese historical geography,’ Journal of Historical Geogra-

phy, 23, 1997, p. 70. （2） Arizono et al., op. cit., 8）（1）, pp. 4-6.58）（1） Takeuchi, K., ‘Spatial perception and historical geographies : introductory remarks,’ Th e Historical Geographic

Review, 27, 1985, p. 10. （J）（2） Kinda, ibid., p. 70.59） Kikuchi, T., Shintei Rekishi Chirigaku Hōhō’ron （Methodologies of Historical Geography, revised edition）, Taimeidō,

1987, p. 49, p. 62, p. 88, pp. 113-114, pp. 225-226. （J）60） Takahashi, et al., op. cit., 7）（2）, p. 28.61） Yamano, op. cit., 7）（1）, pp. 238-241.62） Buttimer, op. cit., 29）（2）.63） Ley, op. cit., 29）（1）, pp. 504-507.64） Maida, I. and Gatayama, K. eds., Kokoro no Naka no Keikan （Landscapes in the Mind）, Kokon Shoin, 1992, pp. 5-

19. （J） Th is book is a Japanese selected translation of ten key articles by Pocock and Porteous on the sense of place.65） Aoki, N., ‘Regional study and philosophy,’ Human Geography, 34, 1982, pp. 539-544. （J）66）（1） Takeda, S., Genshōgaku Nyūmon （Introduction to Phenomenology）, NHK Press, 1989. （J）（2） Takeda, S., Ha-

jimete no Genshōgaku （Phenomenology for Beginners）, Kaichōsha, 1993. （J）67） Takeda, ibid., （2）, pp. 34-62. 68） Abe, H., ‘Landscape, place, and story : an essay toward phenomenological landscape study,’ Geographical Review of

Japan, 63A, 1990, pp. 453-465. （JE）69） Murata, Y., ‘Towards the construction of the epistemology of men’s studies in geography,’ Japanese Journal of Hu-

man Geography, 58, 2006, pp. 453-469. （JE）70） Wakabayashi, Y., ‘Some problems and prospects of behavioral geography,’ Human Geography, 37, 1985, pp. 154-

155. （J）71） Th e Association of Historical Geographers in Japan, ed., Rekishi Chirigaku Kiyō （Th e Historical Geographic Re-

view）, 27, 1985. （J）

526


―　57　―

72） Oguchi, C., Nihonjin no Sōtaiteki Kankyōkan （Historical Geography of Perceived Environment in Japan）, Kokon Shoin, 2002, pp. 7-23. （J）

73）（1） Yamano, op. cit., 7）（1）, p. 241. （2） Yamano, M., ‘Perspectives on physiognomic viewing of landscapes,’ Iichiko, 11, 1989, pp. 49-55. （J）

74） Yamano, op. cit., 13）, p. 54.75） Maida, I. and Gatayama, K., ‘New trends in humanistic geography : with reference to sensuous geography,’ Human

Geography, 43, 1991, p. 548. （JE）76） Yamaguchi, Y., ‘Landscape structure of a sacred basin village, Murō : paying attention to a landscape attracting hu-

man beings,’ Human Geography, 49, 1997, pp. 159-161. （JE）77） Teramoto, K., ‘A study on children’s activities and their perception of the environment : a humanistic approach in

geography,’ Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History, 54, 1993, p. 6. （JE）78） Kawai, Y., ‘Mt. Fuji as a sacred site : on historical change in fuji-kou and fuji-zuka in the 23 wards of Tokyo,’ Geo-

graphical Review of Japan, 74A, 2001, pp. 349-366. （JE）79） Nakamura, Y., Mentaru Mappu no Genshōgaku （A Phenomenology of Mental Maps）, Kokon Shoin, 2004. （J） He

oddly regarded the concept of ‘lifeworld’ as the same as a classic geographical concept of ‘phenomena of the earth’s surface fi lled with objects.’

80） Johnston, R. J., ‘Paradigms and revolutions or evolution ?’ Progress in Human Geography, 2, 1978, p. 195.81） Pratt, G., ‘Quantitative techniques and humanistic-historical materialist perspectives’ （Kobayashi, A. and Macken-

zie, S. eds., Remaking Human Geography, Unwin Hyman, 1989）, p. 102.82） Seamon, D., A Geography of the Lifeworld : Movement, Rest and Encounter, St. Martin’s Press, 1979, p. 16, p. 35,

pp. 159-162.83）（1） Entrikin, op. cit., 3）, p. 625. （2） Gregory, D., ‘Humanistic geography’ （Johnston, R. J, et al. eds., Th e Diction-

ary of Human Geography : 4th edition, Blackwell, 2000）, p. 361. 84） Ley and Samuels added the following two points : reawakening of humanist principles ; and holism that synthesiz-

es the man and the environment dialectically and contextually. Ley and Samuels, op. cit., 4）, pp. 1-3, pp. 11-12.85） Gregory, op. cit., 83）（2）, pp. 361-362.86） Tuan, Y-F., ‘Space and place : humanistic perspective,’ Progress in Geography, 6, 1974, pp. 211-252. 87） Tuan, Y-F., ‘Geography, phenomenology, and the study of human nature,’ Canadian Geographer, 15, 1971, pp. 181-

192.88） Tuan, Y-F., ‘Structuralism, existentialism, and environmental perception,’ Environment and Behavior, 4, 1972, p.

320.89） Tuan, op. cit., 1）, p. 275.90）（1） Tuan, op. cit., 1）, pp. 267-272. （2） Tuan, op. cit., 17）（2）.91） Tuan, op. cit., 18）（2）.92） Tuan, op. cit., 1）, p. 274.93） Tuan, op. cit., 18）（1）, 19）（4）.94） Tuan, op. cit., 18）（1）, pp. 172-182.95） Abe, H., ‘Tuan’ （Takeuchi, K. and Sugiura, Y., Nijusseiki no Chirigakusha （Great Geographers in the 20th Century）,

Kokon Shoin, 2001）, pp. 226-229. （J）96） Berque, A., ‘Commentary for Japanese edition’ （Tuan, Y-F., translated by Yamamoto, H., Kūkan no Keiken, Chiku-

ma Shobō, 1988）, pp. 357-358. （J）97） Tuan, op. cit., 87）, p. 181, p. 188.98） Ley and Samuels, op. cit., 4）, pp. 4-5.99） Peet, R., Modern Geographical Th ought, Blackwell, 1998, p. 64.

100） Relph, E., Place and Placelessness, Pion, 1976, pp. 45-46.101） Relph, E., ‘An inquiry into the relations between phenomenology and geography,’ Canadian Geographer, 14, 1970,

pp. 193-201.102）（1） Relph, E., Rational Landscapes and Humanistic Geography, Croom Helm, 1981, pp. 63-105. （2） Relph, E.,

‘Responsive methods, geographical imagination and the study of landscapes’ （Kobayashi, A. and Mackenzie, S. eds., Remaking Human Geography, Unwin Hyman, 1989）, pp. 159-161.

103） Relph, ibid., （2）, pp. 152-153.104） Relph, ibid., （2）, pp. 155-157.105） Relph, op. cit., 102）（1）, pp. 112-122, p. 127.106） Relph, op. cit., 102）（1）, pp. 122-127.107） Relph, op. cit., 102）（1）, p. 15.108） Relph, op. cit., 102）（1）, p. 127.109） Relph, op. cit., 100）, preface.

527

―　58　―


110）（1） Relph, op. cit., 100）, pp. 63-121. （2） Relph, op. cit., 102）（1）, pp. 63-105.111） Takano, T., ‘Afterword’ （Relph, E., translated by Takano, T., Abe, T. and Ishiyama, M., Basho no Genshōgaku, Chi-

kuma Shobō, 1991）, p. 269. （J）112） Relph, op. cit., 102）（1）, p. 157.113） Ley, D., ‘Fragmentation, coherence, and limits to theory in human geography’ （Kobayashi, A. and Mackenzie, S.

eds., Remaking Human Geography, Unwin Hyman, 1989）, pp. 228-230.114） Ley, D., ‘Social geography and social action’ （Ley, D. and Samuels, M. S. eds., Humanistic Geography : Prospects

and Problems, Croom Helm, 1978）, pp. 41-43.115） Ley, D., Geography without Man : A Humanistic Critique, School of Geography, University of Oxford, 1980, pp. 3-

5.116）（1） Ley, op. cit., 114）, pp. 46-47. （2） Kobayashi, A. and Mackenzie, S., ‘Introduction : humanism and historical

materialism in contemporary geography’ （Kobayashi, A. and Mackenzie, S. eds., Remaking Human Geography, Un-win Hyman, 1989）, pp. 6-7.

117） Ley, op. cit., 115）, p. 19.118）（1） Ley, op. cit., 115）, pp. 15-16. （2） Ley, D., ‘Rediscovering man’s place,’ Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers, N. S. 7, 1982, pp. 248-253.119） Ley, op. cit., 114）, pp. 46-47.120） Gregory, op. cit., 29）（3）.121）（1） Jackson and Smith, op. cit., 27）, pp. 66-78. （2） Nozawa, H., ‘Agency and structure in geography : controversy

between Ley and Gregory,’ Chiri （Geography）, 38-5, 1993, pp. 58-64. （J）122） Ley, D., A Social Geography of the City, Harper & Row, 1983, pp. 8-9.123）（1） Ley, op. cit., 29）（1）, pp. 504-507. （2） Ley, op. cit., 114）, p. 50.124） Ley, D., Th e Black Inner City as Frontier Outpost : Images and Beharior of a Philadelphia Neighborhood, Th e Asso-

ciation of American Geographers, 1974, pp. 1-20.125） Ley, ibid., pp. 121-238.126） Ogawa, T., Genshōgaku to Bunka Jinruigaku （Phenomenology and Cultural Anthropology）, Sekai Shoin, 1989, pp.

157-179. （J）127） Pocock, D., ‘Th e paradox of humanistic geography,’ Area, 15, 1983, p. 358. 128）（1） Johnston, op. cit., 80）, p. 202. （2） Benko and Strohmayer, op. cit., 6）, p. 73. （3） Yamano, op. cit., 7）（1）, p.

243. （4） Maida and Gatayama, op. cit., 64）, pp. 6-9. 129） Relph, op. cit., 101）, pp. 194-198.130） Buttimer’s approach, which tried to join with time-geography, was also not anti-science. Buttimer, op. cit., 2）, pp.

286-287.131）（1） Tuan, op. cit., 1）, pp. 266-267. （2） Tuan, op. cit., 86）, pp. 245-246. 132） Tuan, op. cit., 17）（1）, 19）（1）.133） Ley and Samuels, op. cit., 4）, pp. 3-5.134）（1） Ley and Samuels, op. cit., 4）, pp. 6-7. （2） Cloke, P., Philo, C. and Sadler, D., Approaching Human Geography :

An Introduction to Contemporary Th eoretical Debates, Paul Chapman, 1991, p. 62.135） Ley and Samuels, op. cit., 4）, pp. 6-7.136） Tuan, Y-F., Space and Place : Th e Perspective of Experience, University of Minnesota Press, 1977, pp. 200-201. 137）（1） Takeda, op. cit., 66）（2）, pp. 108-111. （2） Tani, T., Kore ga Genshōgaku da （Th is is Phenomenology !）, Kōdan-

sha, 2002, pp. 29-37. （J）138） Husserl, E., translated by Hosoya, T. and Kida, G., Yōroppa Shogaku no Kiki to Chōetsuronteki Genshōgaku （Die

Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie）, Chūō Kōronsha, 1974, pp. 35-84. （J）

139）（1） Husserl, ibid., p. 198. （2） Ogawa, op. cit., 126）, pp. 209-212. 140） Pickles, J., Phenomenology, Science and Geography, Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 3-4.141）（1） Pickles, ibid., p. 143. （2） Washida, K., Genshōgaku no Shisen（Perspectives of Phenomenology）, Kōdansha,

1997, pp. 178-182. （J）142） Pickles, ibid., pp. 51-52.143） Pickles, ibid., pp. 4-8, pp. 51-52, p. 133.144） Peet, op. cit., 99）, p. 47.145）（1） Buttimer, op. cit., 2）, p. 280. （2） Entrikin, op. cit., 3）, pp. 629-631. （3） Billinge, M., ‘In search of negativism :

phenomenology and historical geography,’ Journal of Historical Geography, 3, 1977, pp. 59-61.146） Daniels, S., ‘Arguments for a humanistic geography’ （Johnston, R. J., ed., Th e Future of Geography, Methuen,

1985）, p. 147.147） Miyasaka, K., Tetsugaku to Gengo （Philosophy and Language）, Nakanishiya Shuppan, 2006, pp. 107-108. （J）

528


―　59　―

148） Johnston and Sidaway, op. cit., 5）（3）, p. 397.149） Strohmayer, U., ‘Th e event of space : geographic allusions in the phenomenological tradition,’ Environment and

Planning D : Society and Space, 16, 1998, pp. 105-121.150）（1） Buttimer, op. cit., 2）, p. 279. （2） Entrikin, op. cit., 3）, p. 629. （3） Jackson and Smith, op. cit., 27）, p. 34.151）（1） Husserl, op. cit., 138）, p. 189. （2） Husserl, E., translated by Watanabe, J., Idēn : vol. 1-1 （Ideen : Erstes Buch）,

Misuzu Shobō, 1979, pp. 215-216, pp. 252-253. （J）152） Husserl, op. cit., 138）, p. 214, p. 330.153） Tani, op. cit., 137）（2）, pp. 68-69.154）（1） Merleau-Ponty, M., translated by Takeuchi, Y. and Kogi, S., Chikaku no Genshōgaku : vol. 1 （Phénoménologie

de la Perception）, Misuzu Shobō, 1967, p. 13. （J）（2） Washida, op. cit., 141）（2）, p. 207. （3） Miyasaka, op. cit., 147）, p. iii.

155） Yamano, M., ‘Participant observation and “participation” mode of thought,’ Studies in the Humanities （Osaka City Univ.）, 44, 1992, p. 722-723. （J）

156） Pickles, op. cit., 140）, p. 5, p. 44.157） Pickles, op. cit., 140）, pp. 43-44.158） Relph, op. cit., 100）.159） Pickles, op. cit., 140）, p. 44.160） Pickles, op. cit., 140）, p. 168.161）（1） Relph, op. cit., 101）. （2） Ley, op. cit., 114）, p. 44. （3） Seamon, op. cit., 82）, p. 35.162） Pickles, op. cit., 140）, pp. 156-163.163）（1） Ley, op. cit., 29）（1）, pp. 502-503. （2） Gregory, D., ‘Th e discourse of the past : phenomenology, structuralism

and historical geography,’ Journal of Historical Geography, 4, 1978, pp. 163-167.164） Schutz, A., translated by Morikawa, M. and Hama, H., Genshōgakuteki Shakaigaku （On Phenomenology and Social

Relations）, Kinokuniya Shoten, 1980, p. 28. （J）165） Pickles, op. cit., 140）, pp. 115-118.166） Schutz, op. cit., 164）, pp. 28-34.167） Schutz, op. cit., 164）, p. 365.168）（1） Ogawa, op. cit., 126）, pp. 98-99. （2） Miyasaka, op. cit., 147）, p. 135.169） Abe, H., ‘Landscapes viewed by Yi-Fu Tuan,’ Gendai Shisō （Modern Th ought）, 20-9, 1992, p. 75. （J）170） Schutz, op. cit., 164）, pp. 292-300.171）（1） Schutz, op. cit., 164）, p. 294. （2） Schutz, A., translated by Nasu, H. et al., Seikatsu Sekai no Kōsei （Refl ections

on the Problem of Relevance）, Maruzyusha, 1996, pp. 58-59. （J）（3） Yamano, op. cit., 155）, pp. 724-725.172） Schutz, A., translated by Sato, Y., Shakaiteki Sekai no Imi Kōsei, revised edition （Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen

Welt）, Bokutakusha, 2006, pp. 170-171, pp. 359-360. （J）173）（1） Yamano, op. cit., 7）（1）, pp. 241-242. （2） Uchida, T., ‘On “mysterious places” for Edo citizens,’ Th e Shirin （Journal of History）, 73, 1990, p. 917. （J）（3） Maida and Gatayama, op. cit., 64）, pp. v-vi.

174）（1） Maida and Gatayama, op. cit., 64）, p. 14. （2） Benko and Strohmayer, op. cit., 6）, p. 73. （3） Onjo, A. and Os-hiro, N., ‘Introduction’ （Arayama, M. and Oshiro, N., eds. Kūkan kara Basho e, Kokon Shoin, 1998）, p. 4. （J）

175）（1） Buttimer, op. cit., 2）, p. 280. （2） Jackson and Smith, op. cit., 27）, p. 32.176）（1） Tuan, op. cit., 88）, p. 320. （2） Tuan, op. cit., 17）（1）, 19）（1）.177） Tuan, op. cit., 18）（1）, （2）, 19）（2）, （3）, （4）.178） Yamano, op. cit., 13）, p. 64.179） Pickles, op. cit., 140）, p. 109.180）（1） Husserl, E., translated by Tatematsu, H., Genshōgaku no Rinen （Die Idee der Phänomenologie）, Misuzu Shobō,

1965, p. 38. （J）（2） Husserl, op. cit., 151）（2）, p. 56. （3） Tani, op. cit., 137）（2）, pp. 76-79.181）（1） Husserl, E., translated by Watanabe, J., Idēn : vol. 1-2 （Ideen : Erstes Buch）, Misuzu Shobō, 1984, p. 38. （J）（2）

Ogawa, op. cit., 126）, pp. 222-223. For example, the pure geometrical form of the perfect ‘circle,’ which is abstracted intersubjectively from ugly distorted circles drawn on a paper, is a priori. Husserl, op. cit., 151）（2）, p. 70.

182） Tani, op. cit., 137）（2）, pp. 48-51.183）（1） Hay, A. M., ‘Positivism in human geography : response to critics’ （Herbert, D. T. and Johnston, R. J., Geogra-

phy and the Urban Environment : Progress in Research and Applications : vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons, 1979）, pp. 15-16. （2） Peet, op. cit., 99）, p. 48.

184） Daniels, op. cit., 146）, pp. 147-150.185） Seamon, op. cit., 82）, p. 23.186） Nakamura, op. cit., 79）, pp. 63-127.187）（1） Johnston and Sidaway, op. cit., 5）（3）, pp. 394-395. （2） Johnston, R. J., translated by Tatsuoka, Y., Gendai

Chirigaku no Chōryū : vol. 2 （Geography and Geographers, 5th edition）, Chijin Shobō, 1999, p. 290. （J） Th is Japa-

529

―　60　―


nese translation of the 5th edition by Johnston has become established as one of the most standard textbooks on the history of geography in Japan.

188） Barnes, T. J., Logics of Dislocation : Models, Metaphors, and Meanings of Economic Space, Th e Guilford Press, 1996, p. 8.

189）（1） Entrikin, op. cit., 3）, p. 627. （2） Ley and Samuels, op. cit., 4）, pp. 9-10. （3） Jackson and Smith, op. cit., 27）, p. 54.

190） Johnston and Sidaway, op. cit., 5）（3）, p. 395.191）（1） Gregory, op. cit., 163）（2）, pp. 171-172. （2） Gregory, D., Ideology, Science and Human Geography, Hutchin-

son, 1978, pp. 105-122. （3） Johnston, R. J., Philosophy and Human Geography : An Introduction to Contemporary Approaches, 2nd edition, Edward Arnold, 1986, pp. 118-135.

192） Gregory, op. cit., 163）（2）, pp. 171-172.193） Tuan, op. cit., 88）, pp. 321-325. His structuralism was, however, actually rather English social anthropological

structuralism than the French structuralism of Lévi-Strauss.194）（1） Gregory, op. cit., 163）（2）, p. 173. （2） Gregory, op. cit., 191）（2）, pp. 91-105.195） Hay, op. cit., 183）（1）, pp. 17-22.196） Imazato, S., Nōsangyoson no ‘Kūkan Bunrui’ （Th e Folk Classifi cation System of Rural Spaces : Reading the Land-

scape as Text）, Kyoto University Press, 2006, pp. 73-96. （J）197） Uchida, T., ‘Th e semantics of place,’ Th e Kyoto Minzoku, 5, 1987, p. 47. （J）198）（1） Kushiya, K., ‘Semantic structure of space and structuralism,’ Human Geography, 36, 1984, p. 274. （J）（2）

Maida and Gatayama, op. cit., 64）, p. 8.199）（1） Senda, M., ‘A semiotic approach to geographical space,’ Human Geography, 32, 1980, pp. 47-62. （J）（2） Suizu,

I., Keikan no Shinsō （Th e Deep Structure of Landscapes）, Chijin Shobō, 1987. （J）200） Senda, ibid., pp. 47-62. 201） Senda, M., Fūkei no Kōzu （Structural Outline of Landscape）, Chijin Shobō, 1992, pp. 253-254. （J）202） Imazato, op. cit., 196）, pp. 84-92.203） Aoki, op. cit., 65）, pp. 533-539.204） Maida and Gatayama, op. cit., 64）.205） Sasaki, T., Minwa no Chirigaku （Th e Grounding of Imagination : A Geographical Approach to Myth, Legend and

Folktales）, Kokon Shoin, 2003. （J）206） Yamano, op. cit., 13）, p. 65. 207） Kushiya, op. cit., 198）（1）, p. 277.208）（1） Imazato, op. cit., 196）. （2） Imazato, S., ‘Semiotic structure of traditional Japanese rural space : Hagikura vil-

lage, Suwa Basin,’ Th e Public Journal of Semiotics, 1, 2007, pp. 2-14.209） Matsumoto, op. cit., 11）, p. 131. 210） Ogawa, op. cit., 126）, pp. 234-237.211） Washida, op. cit., 141）（2）, p. 58.212） Takinami, A., Tōi Fūkei （Faraway Places : Poetics and Politics in the Age of Tourism）, Kyoto University Press, 2005,

pp. 21-295. （J）213） Takinami, A., ‘Th e meaning of “ambience” in famous hotels in Geneva : general managers’ point of view,’ Geo-

graphical Review of Japan, 76, 2003, pp. 621-644. （JE）214） Takinami, A., ‘L’espace parisien représenté dans le Guide Bleu : contraste entre l’ambiance et le monument,’ Geo-

graphical Review of Japan, 68A, 1995, pp. 145-167. （JF）215） Ohji, T., ‘Regional geography and area studies : an epistemological note’ （Nishikawa, O. ed., Chirigaku Gairon （In-

troduction to Geography）, Asakura Shoten, 1996）, pp. 229-249. （J）216） Sack, R. D., ‘Th e spatial separatist theme in geography,’ Economic Geography, 50, 1974, pp. 1-19.217） Hinckfuss, I., translated by Murakami, Y. and Kumakura, K., Jikan to Kūkan no Tetsugaku （Th e Existence of Space

and Time）, Kinokuniya Shoten, 1979, pp. 20-22. （J）218）（1） Kioka, N., Fūkei no Ronri （Logic of Landscape : Between Silence and Expression）, Sekai Shisōsha, 2007, pp. 35-43. （J）（2） Takinami, op. cit., 212）, pp. 6-9.

219）（1） Senda, op. cit., 201）, p. 249. （2） Senda, M., ‘Introduction’ （Senda, M. ed., Fūkei no Bunkashi : vol. 1 （Cultural Iconography of Landscapes）, Kokon Shoin, 1998）, pp. 9-10. （J）

220） Senda, M. ‘Introduction’ （Senda, M. ed., Chizu no Kanata ni, Chijin Shobō, 1981）, pp. 10-12. （J）221） Senda, op. cit., 201）, pp. 269-274.222） Senda, M., ‘Japan’s traditional view of nature and interpretation of landscape,’ GeoJournal, 26-2, 1992, p. 131. See

also Takeuchi, op. cit., 10）, pp. 209-211.223）（1） Senda, op. cit., 201）, pp. 265-269. （2） Senda, op. cit., 222）, pp. 129-131.224） Senda, op. cit., 201）, pp. 274-277.

530


―　61　―

225） Uchida, Y., ‘Th e nature-human relationship represented in Miyazaki’s “Nausika” and environmental ethics of peo-ple today,’ Geographical Reports of Kokushikan University, 5, 1996, pp. 1-15. （J）

226）（1） Yamano, M., ‘On the physiognomic point-of-view,’ Studies in the Humanities （Osaka City Univ.）, 35, 1983, pp. 671-686. （J）（2） Yamano, op. cit., 13）, pp. 64-65.

227） Concerning the classical works of French geographers, studies of Sion, Gourou, and le Lannou were reevaluated as maintaining humanistic perspectives. Nishimura, T., Bunmei to Keikan （Civilization and Landscape）, Chijin Shobō, 1997, pp. 28-31, pp. 111-113. （J）

228） Yamano, op. cit., 73）（2）, pp. 41-42.229）（1） Yamano, M., ‘A note on the idea of Lévy-Bruhl’s “participation”,’ Studies in the Humanities （Osaka City Univ.）,

42, 1990, pp. 595-618. （J）（2） Yamano, op. cit., 155）, p. 708.230） Matsumoto, op. cit., 11）, p. 137.231）（1） Matsumoto, H., ‘Language and nature : beyond ecology toward deep landscape,’ Geographical Reports of Osa-

ka Kyoiku University, 32, 1997, pp. 14-18. （J）（2） Matsumoto, H., ‘Wind and bodyscape in the Torres Strait Is-lands : a monograph on the sensuous meaning,’ Geographical Reports of Osaka Kyoiku University, 34, 1999, pp. 35-77. （J）

232）（1） Matsumoto, op. cit. 11）, p. 137. （2） Matsumoto, op. cit., 231）（1）, pp. 18-21.233） Iwata, K., Iwata Keiji Chosakushū （Th e Collected Works of Keiji Iwata）, Kōdansha, 1995, vol. 2, pp. 401-407 ; vol.

5, pp. 1-408. （J）234） Iwata, ibid., vol. 2, pp. 402-403 ; vol. 8, pp. 70-71.235） Iwata, ibid., vol. 2, pp. 419-425 ; vol. 4, p. 20 ; vol. 6, pp. 167-169.236） Iwata, ibid., vol. 2, pp. 55-58, p. 331, pp. 419-425.237） Iwata, ibid., vol. 3, pp. 378-380 ; vol. 6, pp. 361-362.238） Iwata, ibid., vol. 7, pp. 423-424 ; vol. 8, pp. 276-277.239） Watanabe, Y., ‘A prospect of geography : reconstruction from cultural geography,’ Journal of Atomi Gakuen Wom-

en’s University, 11, 1978, pp. 31-32. （J）240） Watanabe, Y., Fūsui, Ki no Keikan Chirigaku （Study of Feng-shui Th ought : Th e Geography of Landscape on Vital

Force）. Jimbun Shoin, 1994, pp. 12-21. （J）241） Maida and Gatayama, op. cit., 75）, pp. 550-554. （J） : Japanese （JE） : Japanese with English abstract （JF） : Japanese with French abstract

Rethinking the Humanistic Approach in Geography : Misunderstood Essences and Japanese Challenges

IMAZATO SatoshiDepartment of Arts and Sciences, Osaka University of Education

　Th is paper critically reevaluated the history of humanistic geography in Japan and English-speaking countries. Japanese applications to case studies have been mainly developed in rural and historical geography, maintaining its own humanistic perspectives nurtured in traditional Japanese academics. Th e essences of humanistic geography as positive science, however, haveoften been misunderstood, both inside and outside of Japan. 　Th e author accordingly reexamined the basic concepts and perspectives in the original ap-proaches of Tuan, Relph, and Ley, as well as in the phenomenology of Husserl and Schutz, to more rigidly redefi ne humanistic geography : focusing on intersubjective order in human existen-tial space or its representations ; seeking universality of human reason and the senses ; utilization of humanities or fi eldwork materials considering inside humans' views ; and philosophical refl ec-tions on the methodology of human sciences. 　From the viewpoint of this redefi nition, we recognize that methodological challenges have

531

―　62　―


accumulated within Japanese geography : semiotics of folk classifi cations of settlement spaces, quantitative textual analysis, epistemological reconsideration of space and landscape, and radical rethinking of the Western dualism between ‘human’ and ‘nature.’

Key words : humanistic geography, subjective space, phenomenology, structuralism, epistemology of space, Western dualism

地理学における人文主義アプローチ再考―誤解された核心と日本からの挑戦―

今里悟之大阪教育大学教養学科

　本稿では，日本と英語圏における人文主義（人間中心主義）地理学の歴史を，批判的に再検討した。日本での事例研究は，主に村落地理学と歴史地理学で展開され，国内で伝統的に培われてきた独自の人文主義的視点も保持されていた。しかしながら，実証科学としての人文主義地理学の核心は，国内外においてしばしば誤解されてきた。　そのため著者は，トゥアン，レルフ，レイそれぞれの元来のアプローチ，およびフッサールとシュッツの現象学に立ち戻って，基本的な概念と視点を再考し，人文主義地理学をより厳密に再定義した。すなわち，人間の実存空間やその表象にみる共同主観的秩序への注目，人間の理性と感性における普遍性の探究，内部の人間の視点に立った人文学的資料や現場調査資料の利用，人間科学の方法論の哲学的反省である。　この再定義からみた場合，日本の地理学においても，集落空間の民俗分類の記号論，計量的なテクスト分析，空間や景観に対する認識論の再検討，「人間」対「自然」という西洋流二元論の根本的再考といった形で，方法論上の挑戦が積み重ねられてきたといえる。

キーワード：人文主義地理学，主観的空間，現象学，構造主義，空間認識論，西洋流二元論

532

Documents

Rethinking the Humanistic Approach in Geography