This paper uses penetrations from Anne Buttimer on significance, metaphor and surroundings in the pattern of geographics to compare the life and plants of E. Estyn Evans with those of T. Jones Hughes. All three of these writers are Irish geographers, and so portion some common academic land: as we will see, nevertheless, all three conveying a different position to their work. In order to utilize penetrations from Anne Buttimer’s work, we foremost need to understand this organic structure of work itself: a sum-up of the most relevant of Buttimer’s academic plants will hence be presented. In order to utilize this apprehension to compare the work of E. Estyn Evans with that of T. Jones Hughes, we will so necessitate to look in item at the work of these two writers, to see what doctrine emerges from their work and to analyze how it is similar to, or differs from, the penetration gained from Buttimer’s work.
In Buttimer’s 1966 thesis, she argued, forcefully, that societal geographers should concern themselves with the societal environment. She argued that the most logical attack to take with respects to defining the field of societal geographics would be to look, foremost, at the areal distinction of the Earth ( in footings of the areal distinction associated with societal features ) , and secondly, to look at the man-milieu relationship ( in footings of analyzing how adult male relates to society, for illustration, through the scrutiny of forms in societal administrations and geographical administration ) ; through this two-pronged attack, Buttimer argues, convincingly, standards can so be developed on which societal geographical surveies can be based [ 1 ] . Her research stance is really much, hence, from a societal geographical point of view, and her involvements lie in this way: seeing what light surveies of societal administration can cast on the field of geographics.
In Buttimer’s 1971 work,Society and surroundings in the Gallic geographic tradition,she argues that geographics sections tend to bring forth what she footings ‘monolingual Ph.D.’s’ , i.e. , graduates from these sections who are cognizant, merely, of geographics as it is taught in the English-speaking universe, and who are merely able to discourse with co-workers in these footings, non from the position of any other academic paradigm. She argues throughout the balance of the paper that this should alter, for the benefit of the subject of geographics, as a whole, and uses the illustration of the Gallic geographic tradition to foreground her statement. As she argues, this Anglo-centric point of view does nil to bring forth a holistic position of geographics, and, as such, harms the field, as it does non let for a wider point of position to be considered.
From these two plants, hence, we can garner that Buttimer’s involvements lie in a non-Anglo-centric position of societal geographics. Much of her farther research has concentrated on societal infinites and urban planning, from the point of position of sustainable development. She has besides been involved in an international duologue undertaking, and a research undertaking looking at the appropriate graduated tables for sustainable development. Her research, her thought, is hence really much geared towards a societal point of view, coupled with concern for the environment, in footings of looking at what geographics can state contrivers about sustainable development undertakings, for illustration. She has ensured that her work has been translated widely, peculiarly in to other European linguistic communications, go oning her involvement in hammering a less Anglo-centric position of societal geographics. Her work on the international duologue undertaking has besides contributed to this point of view, as the purpose of the undertaking was to hammer inter-community duologues. Her involvements, hence, lie every bit much in researching geographics as pass oning geographics to as broad an audience as possible.
What decision can we derive as to the attack that Buttimer brings the field of geographics i.e. , what penetrations can be gained from analyzing Buttimer’s work, in peculiar her thoughts of ‘meaning, metaphor and surroundings in the pattern of geography’ ? As we have seen, Buttimer’s premier involvement is in the proper communicating of societal geographics, as a field in which the societal features of geographic distributions are studied, and learnt from. By communicating, in the context of Buttimer’s work, we can understand that this means that research should be conducted from a non-Anglo-centric point of position, bearing in head other paradigms for analyzing societal geographics ( European, or Asiatic, or Australasian, for illustration ) , and that the consequences of such research should be promulgated every bit widely as possible, through the appropriate usage of publications, and through interlingual renditions in to other linguistic communications. Her ain ‘brand’ of societal geographics, late, extends every bit far as proposing sustainable ways of life, and making homes, so that the environment is protected. Her attack to the field of geographics, in this mode, is therefore highly holistic ; possibly one can travel so far as to contend that she holds this world-view, and brings this world-view to her work, because she is a Nun ( she is really Sister Anne Buttimer ) . Her work, hence, is informed by her personal beliefs and by the penetrations these personal beliefs bring to her research.
This position of her work is nowhere better illustrated than in her 2003 book, written with Yi-Fu Tuan,Geography and the Human Spirit,which looks at the issue of what it means to ‘dwell’ . The chief statement of the book is that through a reappraisal of civilizations, throughout history and across the universe, new penetrations can be gained in to the relationship between worlds and their environment. Such a reappraisal, argue Buttimer and Tuan in the book, can take to a deeper apprehension of how human existences, of whatever civilization or geographic location, take what they learn from their milieus ( their surroundings, as Buttimer calls it ) , to organize their ain peculiar position of the Earth as a home ground. In this manner, Buttimer and Tuan liken worlds to animate beings, and categorize the peculiar pick of life of civilizations much as ecologists would impute niche infinites to animate beings. This work is Buttimer’s most straightecologicalbook, and uses many of the same statements that ecologists usage, to bring forth penetrations and treatments about the functions, topographic points and hereafters of worlds on Earth.
In this manner, the book stands as a work of societal geographics, pressing the religious side of humanity to suppress, so that, finally, the Earth can be saved from any farther harm. Her construct of geographics has, through this book, moved to go even more socially responsible, with impulses for worlds to listen to their scrupless, and to move responsibly towards the Earth, so that the Earth can go on to supply worlds with home grounds in which to populate. This work is, in some senses, a ‘spiritual’ continuance of the call for sustainability presented in her 2001 work,Sustainable Landscapes and Lifeways: Scale and Appropriatenessin which she argued for sustainable forms of life to be forged.
What insights from Anne Buttimer’s work can therefore be used to analyze the work of E. Estyn Evans and T. Jones Hughes? As we have seen, her position of societal geographics is holistic, and calls for a sustainable attack to human’s development of the Earth’s valuable resources. In this sense, her work is planetary in context. This attack, on face value, stands in direct contrast to the work of E. Estyn Evans and T. Jones Hughes, both of whom are Irish geographers, both of whom are concerned with their local histories, societal geographicss and, more regionally, with Irish history. The attack of these two geographers is, hence, rather distinguishable from the work of Buttimer – they are interested in understanding ‘Irishness’ , basically,nonin any planetary apprehension of the topographic point, and concerns of, societal geographics, nor with any apprehension of any holistic position of Ireland’s topographic point in a planetary context, for illustration.
From this point of view, hence, Evans and Hughes can be said to be local geographers, who did non concern themselves with planetary issues, or holistic analyses of the field of societal geographics. This, hence, stands in direct contrast to the work of Buttimer, which we have analysed in item, and which we have seen ever argues forholisticapprehension of man’s surroundings. This difference can be understood when one looks at the context of their work: both Evans and Hughes were working at a clip when geographics was still really much in it’s babyhood, as a research field, and planetary concerns for the environment were, basically, non-existent. That their work did non make every bit far as Buttimer’s, in the sense of embracing planetary, non merely regional, or local, issues, is, hence, apprehensible. The life, and work, of Evans and Hughes, as they saw it, in footings of the field of geographics at that clip, was to progress cognition of the Ireland and the Irish.
Evan’s work, in peculiar, for illustration his bookThe Personality of Ireland: Habitat, Heritage and History,progresss a position of Ireland’s history from a human geographics position, taking heritage in to account in order to give signifier and form to the version of Irish history that is traditionally recounted ( i.e. , the history of the English in IrelandV.the history of Gaelic Ireland ) . His usage ofheritageto depict his version of Irish history gives a Fuller apprehension of the Irish, and this attack gives new penetrations in to Irish civilization, for illustration, his find of centuries-old cultural continuities in Irish civilization. In this sense, Evans’ work gives the Irish their ain, new, version of their history, anIrishversion of their history: in this mode, Evans’ work in this book can be argued to be similar to some of Buttimer’s rules i.e. , supplying a holistic point of view ( his usage of heritage to inform history which leads to aholisticposition of Irish history, from an Irish point of view ) , and pass oning research widely ( Evans’ usage of heritage to inform history can be argued to be a manner of taking the general populace to understand his work, for illustration ) . In this sense, so, reading Evans’ work in the visible radiation of Buttimer’s attack to societal geographics can take to new penetrations in to the work of Evans.
Continuing this attack ( i.e. , bearing Buttimer’s work in head ) whilst critically reading Evans’ other plants, for illustration hisThe Personality of Ireland: Habitat, Heritage and History,or hisIrish Heritage, orIrish Folk Ways, can take to farther penetrations to the work of Evans. Reading Evans’ work in this manner, one can see that he was possibly seeking to give the Irish a existent sense of their ain civilization, of the things that make Irish civilization unique, of the history that has led the Irish to the present twenty-four hours: in this sense, Buttimer’s position, that societal geographics can take to a holistic screening of a peculiar topographic point, or event, in a more planetary, less local or regional, context, is reinforced: the Irish, for Evans,becomea peculiar civilization, independent of any English influence, to be viewed in aplanetarycontext, as a rich civilization, worthy of survey.
Evans’ , through his relentless researching, and communication, about the Irish civilization, from the positions of heritage, history and human geographics, has led to the apprehension of the Irish as a people, as a distinguishable civilization. This position gives the Irish true freedom, and pride in their veryIrishnessas distinguishable from any other European, or worldwide, civilization. Following this reading of Evans’ work, which is informed by the point of view of Buttimer,Irishnessis something to be proud of, a cultural heritage that has developed over centuries, has survived centuries of being threatened by domination by the English, and which can be studied and learnt from. Evans, as Buttimer, sees metaphors everyplace, he sees archeological memorials as metaphors for the English domination of the Irish, for illustration, and in his workIrish Folk Ways,sees folk traditions as metaphors for the ‘Irish’ manner of life, for illustration, and sees such metaphors as reenforcing the thought of what Buttimer would term ‘milieu’ for the Irish.
The relationship between the people and their surroundings, is, as for Buttimer, for Evans, cardinal to an apprehension of the Irish, although he takes a more human geography-oriented, about anthropological attack to this issue, than does Buttimer: by analysing Irish common people traditions, for illustration, Evans looks at how the Irish relate to their milieus, to their environment. He records many cases of traditions which basically are recited, or re-enacted, to thank the land for its wealths, for illustration, proposing that the Irish are sensitive to their milieus, and aware of how the land provides for them. In this sense, Evans fore-runs Buttimer’s thoughts as presented in her bookGeography and the Human Spirit: a critical reading of Evans’ work leads to the suggestion that the Irish spirit is, someway, connected to the land and that the land embodies the Irish spirit, such that to be Irish is to belong to the land. This sentiment absolutely embodies Buttimer’s thoughts of sustainability and holistic thought: without such a connexion to the land, for illustration, it is impossible to believe about continuing the land. In this sense, hence, critically reading Evans’ work, and holding a more in-depth analysis of the work, one can see that the work of Buttimer and Evans are non so far removed, despite that fact that the two writers come from different aspects of the field of geographics ( human and societal geographics, severally ) .
Similarly to E. Estyn Evans, T. Jones Hughes was what would be now classified a human geographer, with an involvement in Irishness and Irish history, peculiarly 19Thursdaycentury Irish history, and the history of Irish colonies. Through his assorted plants, many of which are collected together in the volumeCommon Land: Essaies on the Historical Geography of Ireland,edited by Smyth and Whelan, for illustration, hisEast Leinster in the mid-nineteenth century,or hisVillage and Town in mid-nineteenth century Ireland[ 2 ] , it can be seen that Hughes is a documenter of societal history, that his involvements lie in documenting the practical, every twenty-four hours life of the Irish, and their motions, and through this, that he paperss and brings alive Irish history and geographics. His preoccupation is non with Irishnessper Se,as with Evans, as we have seen, but instead withhowthe Irish settled Ireland, andhowthey lived. He is non so much interested inunderstandingwhat it means to be Irish, as with Evans, but instead withdocumentinghow the Irish lived, worked and moved about Ireland in the 19th century. In this sense, the work of Hughes can be suggested to be societal certification, or societal history, andnonsocietal geographics, as defined by Buttimer in her 1966 thesis. The work of Hughes differs from the work of Evans, hence, in this chief standards: one is the work of a geographer, the other the work of a societal historiographer, although both writers declare themselvesgeographers[ 3 ].Here, we can once more raise Buttimer to unclutter up this quandary: under her definition of societal geographics, which aims to utilize an apprehension of societal dimensions to understand areal distinctions, Hughes’ work in documenting the day-to-day lives, and motions of, 19th century Irish can be argued to conform to Buttimer’s definition of societal geographics. The chief difference between the plants of Evans and Hughes still stands, nevertheless, in that one ( Evans ) approaches the inquiry ofIrishnessthrough an about anthropological probe of the history, imposts and civilization of the Irish, whereas the other ( Hughes ) basically surveies theformsof day-to-day life, and motions of one peculiar sub-set of the Irish ( i.e. , 19th century Irish ) , offering no existent analysis of the societal geographics of this sub-set, but instead merely offering up certification, non analysis, to back up his research.
This paper has used penetrations from Anne Buttimer on significance, metaphor and surroundings in the pattern of geographics to compare the life and plants of E. Estyn Evans with those of T. Jones Hughes. We have seen that Buttimer’s work informs, even defines, in a holistic mode, the field of societal geographics. The life and work of Evans was to supply the Irish with anIrishversion of Irish history, through the elaborate survey of the lives, heritage and civilization of the Irish. The life and work of Hughes was to supply documental grounds as to the day-to-day lives and motions of 19th century Irish. The work of Evans and Hughes are hence both straight concerned with the Irish, but one aims to supply a holistic apprehension of ‘the Irish’ , whereas the other purposes simply to document a sub-set of the Irish. The work of Evans, as has been shown, more closely resembles the apprehension of societal geographics as outlined by Buttimer in her assorted plants.
Buchanan, R.H. , Jones, E. and McCourt, D. ( 1971 ) .Man and his home ground: essays presented to Emyr Estyn Evans.London: Routledge.
Buttimer, A. ( 1966 ) .Some modern-day readings and historical case in points of societal geographics: with peculiar accent on the Gallic parts to the field.Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington.
Buttimer, A. ( 1971 ) . Society and surroundings in the Gallic geographic tradition.The Monograph Series of the Association of American Geographers6: 196-219.
Buttimer, A. ( 1983 ) .The Practice of Geography.London: Longman.
Buttimer, A. ( 1993 ) .Geography and the Human Spirit.Johns Hopkins University Press.
Buttimer, A. ( 2001 ) .Sustainable landscapes and lifeways: graduated table and rightness.Cork University Press.
Buttimer, A. and Seamon, D. ( 1980 ) .The human experience of clip and infinite.London: Croom Helm.
De Breffny, B. ( ed. ) ( 1977 ) .The Irish World: the history and cultural accomplishments of the Irish people.Thames and Hudson.
Evans, E. Estyn ( 1942 ) .Irish heritage: the landscape, the people and their work.Dundalgan Press.
Evans, E. Estyn ( 1957 ) .Irish common people ways. London: Routledge.
Evans, E. Estyn ( 1967 ) . The Irishness of the Irish.Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations.
Evans, E. Estyn ( 1978 ) .The personality of Ireland: home ground, heritage and history.Capital of northern ireland: Blackstaff.
Graham, B.J. ( 1994 ) . The Search for common land: Estyn Evans’ Ireland. Minutess of the Institute of British Geographers19 ( 2 ) : 183-201.
Hughes, T. Jones ( 1965 ) . Society and colony in 19th century Ireland. InIrish GeographyV ( 2 ) , 79-96.
Smyth, W.J. and Whelan, K. ( explosive detection systems. ) ( 1988 ) . The published authorship of T. Jones Hughes, inCommon Land: Essaies on the Historical Geography of Ireland.Cork University Press.
Sir leslie stephens, N. and Glasscock, R.E. ( explosive detection systems. ) ( 1970 ) .Irish geographical surveies: in honor of E. Estyn Evans.Department of Geography, The Queens University of Belfast.
Tuan, Y-F. and Buttimer, A. ( 2003 ) .Geography and the Human Spirit.