Originally intended as a paper for a course at the faculty of Urban Studies at Leiden University
Introduction
What makes a place a place? This paper will discuss several interpretations of what ‘place’ is, and analyze these definitions through the lens of the art project of Elgaland-Vargaland. Along the way, concepts such as multiculturalism, thirdspace and heterotopia will be assessed and discussed.
Definition
First, to make things clear: there is a distinction between ‘place’ and ‘space’, with space being a location without a specific meaning, in contrast with place (Tuan, 1977). This is a relatively minor difference, but can lead to confusion. Therefore, in this paper, the term place will be used.
There have been several scholars who identified ‘place’ or ‘space’ in three or four terms, which roughly seem to outline the same concepts.
In 1976, geographer Edgar Relph identified the following three components of ‘place’ as being:
The setting/location of the place, the position and ‘flesh and bones’
Activities, situations and events in the place
Meanings associated with the place, both individual and group-like.
Some of these components could be interpreted as being parts of the same concept, such as Lefebvre (1974) would combine P(2) and P(3) into one concept, the espace vécu, lived space. However, the reason to split up this is based on the fact that P(2) is objective, whereas P(3) is mostly subjective. In this paper, these different components of place are indicated with P(X), with X being a number.
It is useful to add a fourth component to this definition, being:
Conceptuality of a place.
P(4) deals also with the ‘state’ or conceptuality of a place: architectural drawings themselves would not be called a place, though they do describe a place that is not yet built. But if the drawings are there, then there is a notion of the place already, and the other components of place can have valuable information being ascribed purely from the drawing.
One might be tempted to say P(4) is just part of P(3), but this can be refuted with the example of religious places, such as heaven, hell and limbo: their state of being is defined by P(4) (Maier, 2013). These places have characteristics which can very well be described along the lines of P(2) and P(3). It also can’t be said that the very notion of heaven itself does not exist, just like the notion of a demolished building still exists. And it’s this notion that differentiates it from P(3).
Table 1: P-components in a table
P(4) resembles Edward Soja’s theory of secondspace somewhat, in that it mostly deals with conceptuality (Soja, 1989). Soja’s theorem falls flat when it comes to accurately describing Los Angeles, as he uses too many dualities for it to be really relevant at times (Mitchell, 2002).
A heterotopia can also be explained more easily with this model: as these places are reserved for deviations of the norms of P(2): that what is expected of the place is explicitly different from the normal spaces surrounding it (Foucault, 1967).
Table 2: Examples of places with their descriptions
If any of the components change, then a place is different. Though, can you really say that a place with changed values is fundamentally a different place? The line can be drawn at several points, with a weak hypothesis only deeming P(1) and P(4) as fundamental. The strong hypothesis includes P(2) and P(3) as fundamental. The order of importance can be seen as P(1) → P(4) → P(2) → P(3).
Definition of Elgaland-Vargaland
Figure 1: Flag of Elgaland-Vargaland in Svinesund, the border crossing between Norway and Sweden.
Source: http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/18/blackson7.php [Visited: 16/11/2020]
A good example of how to play and experiment with the notion of place is Elgaland-Vargaland (abbr.: KREV). Founded in 1992 by Swedish artists Carl Michael von Hausswolff and Leif Elggren, the ‘country’ encompasses all places of ‘no man’s land’: borders, international waters, the unclaimed territories of Antarctica, et cetera: all Elgaland-Vargaland (Middleton, 2015) (Newman, 2007). Next to that, Elgaland-Vargaland encompasses mental ‘states’ as well. The state of limbo? That’s a subregion of Elgaland-Vargaland too. So are the other religious territories. Dreamland? Yup. Even the digital world isn’t safe from the colonialism of KREV.
It’s incredible how paradoxical the nation can be: it is both the largest and smallest on earth, has diplomatic entities in place, yet appears to be completely unrepresented on the world stage. It has a flag, stamps, a national anthem, passports, even its own embassies. Yet no-one officially lives in the place, though citizenship can be obtained outside the country by sending a letter to the embassy in Stockholm.
Interaction between the two concepts
Now how does Elgaland-Vargaland play into these components of place mentioned earlier? It does quite a good job in dissecting all of these, with several components.
Notable is also that Elgaland-Vargaland claims all virtual, dream and religious space, thereby heavily playing into the concept of P(4). Because, while virtual spaces have been ‘conquered’ at times (be it hacking, or government restrictions on access of certain sites), it would seem silly to conquer the other spaces. However, what about propaganda and things like a Thought Police? In a sense, this can be seen as colonization of the state of mind.
Furthermore, P(1) is flexible in Elgaland-Vargaland, as borders tend to change, but also aren’t always considered solid, in the case of heavily disputed territories for example, where there can be very real borders. So, is this KREV? In theory, yes, but in reality, it seems unlikely and frankly, a bit silly.
Multicultural state of mind
No one lives in KREV’s territories, yet it does have several embassies and consulates of its citizens, which could be interpreted as an exclave of the country by some, and to that extent as soil. However, the legality of this is a bit vague, because several people have lived in embassies under the approval of the country behind them, not their official soil, such as Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London (Addley, 2019). In that sense, it can be seen as foreign soil, which also expands KREV’s claim to territoriality.
The constitution of KREV explicitly states the promotion of tourism and multiculturalism within Elgaland-Vargaland. (article 30 and 31). Of course, it’s easy to ‘visit’ a mental state, the only thing holding you back is yourself. But how about the border territories KREV claimed?
At one point in 2002, several ‘citizens’ of KREV attempted to cross the border by ferry from Finland to Estonia and, although successful in getting on the boat in Finland, were shortly detained in Estonia, because of their ‘fake’ passports (Middleton, 2015). So, in practice, KREV’s policies don’t really work out yet.
Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly states that it seeks to unify every country on Earth to a single state, that of KREV. What this means, is that there will no longer be any real territorial claims to place, rendering the political notion of P(2) quite useless, and discrediting P(1) a bit. Because, what’s a country when it has no borders and political system, other than a cultural entity? After KREV (somehow) has taken over all of the planet’s soil, every citizen will have a territory of its own, yet this claim will mostly be useless.
All this is remarkable for one thing: multiculturalism. Because, remember, the notion of culture isn’t particularly bound to place, such as in the case of the Romani (Pehkohnen, 2018). While it could be argued that the Romani do not have a definite ‘place’, the descriptions of P(2), P(3) and P(4) are still very valid, and P(1) can be described, just being very complex. If KREV were to succeed in their pledge of unification, P(3) would be the last to change, because this place-component of meaning is deeply personal. One might even say that to achieve true multiculturalism, everyone should be able to express their notion of P(3), while acknowledging the other components of place. However, before this will become a reality, years and years will have passed.
Conclusion
Place is a funny thing. In this paper, the concept of place has been analyzed in four components, based on those by Edward Relph:
P(1), indicating a setting/(physical)location, P(2), indicating activities, P(3) indicating meanings and P(4) indicating conceptuality. The art project of Elgaland-Vargaland was analyzed and deemed very interesting in demonstrating these components and their implications, in multiculturalism for example.
Addley, E. (2019) “The seven-year itch: Assange's awkward stay in the embassy.” The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/11/how-ecuador-lost-patience-with-houseguest-julian-assange [Visited: 16/11/2020]
Elggren, L. & Von Hausswolff, C.M. (1992) Elgaland-Vargaland: A Short History. From: https://elgaland-vargaland.org/a-short-history/ [Visited: 16/11/2020]
Foucault, M. (1967) “Of Other Spaces, Heterotopias.” (trans: some guy, 1984) Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité. 5: p46-49. From: https://foucault.info/documents/heterotopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en/ [Visited: 05/11/2020]
Lefebvre, H. (1974) The Production of Space.
Maier, H.O. (2013) “Soja's Thirdspace, Foucault's Heterotopia and de Certeau's Practice: Time-Space and Social Geography in Emergent Christianity” Historical Research. 38-3
Middleton, N. (2015) An Atlas of Countries That Don’t Exist: A Compendium of Fifty Unrecognized and Largely Unnoticed States. London: Pan Macmillan.
Mitchell, T. (2002) The Psychasthenia of Deep Space. From: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/4325/1/4325.pdf [Visited: 16/11/2020]
Newman, M. (2007). “Slash Fiction.” Art Monthly, 306: p30-32
Pehkonen, S. (2018). “Impromptu facts and moral panic: the Roma people and local communities.” In M. Ojala-Fulwood (editor), Migration and Multi-ethnic Communities p. 223–244. Berlin: De Gruyter. From: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110528879-010 [Visited: 16/11/2020]
Relph, E.C. (1976) Place and Placelessness Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Soja, E.W. (1989) Postmodern Geographies. New York: Verso Books
Tuan, Y. (1977) Space and Place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
