Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space

One aspect of the growth in enthusiasm for locality studies has been the idea that they provide a focus for understanding local variation in all aspects of life, even down to the experience of the household. The author takes issue with that contention. The locality has usually been defined with reference to the rounds of investment and production decisions which have been central to the construction of local labour markets. This is not the level at which household arrangements can best be understood. The local labour market will be a necessary contextualising element in analysis, but household dynamics will also be affected by, for example, influences operating at national level, such as the regulation of the benefit system, influences operating at an ideological level, such as the patriarchal ordering of work and employment relations, and the more immediate social world in which the household is located. It is argued here that this world is best conceptualised with reference to social networks which often operate at neighbourhood level, rather than through ‘locality’ differences defined as local labour markets.

A method is described to trace ‘locality’, or spatial variations in policy, through comparative analysis. It is argued that the problem of structure versus agency can never be solved once and for all by philosophical arguments, but always has to be rephrased into empirically manageable terms. This is possible through use of the ‘most similar’ approach of comparative analysis. When external structural determinants of policy are kept under control, local variations can be traced back to locally specific determinants. These determinants must be examined in depth through case studies. This also paves the way for empirically based counterfactual reasoning. Thus, the extent to which local actors are not just forced by structural determinants to act in a certain way can be estimated. The general approach is illustrated by reference to a case study of local housing policies in Sweden. Some critical questions are raised. One must not forget that structures and actors, whether national or local, are inseparably bound up with processes, and that ‘structures’ are always just crystallised results of human action.

The paper is an attempt to clarify the concept of locality for further research by investigating two common meanings of locality: locality as localised social structure and locality as agent. The first is developed through linking local dependence to territorial forms of the division of labour; to enable this a new concept, ‘the scale division of labour’, is introduced. This concept describes what roles in the social division of labour exist at different scales, and hence of what social relations the localised social structure consists. The locality as agent concept is developed from the idea of locally dependent actors with interests in the same locality forming an alliance, acting together to develop and implement strategies to further their interests. This avoids spatial fetishism because locality was first defined not in physical terms, but as localised social structure.

Much of the recent ‘locality studies’ literature suffers from a poorly theorised conception of the cultural dimensions of social and economic change. Despite frequent references to political cultures, regional traditions, and local loyalties, the emphasis of most ‘locality studies’ has been on questions of employment, spatial divisions of labour, and the geography of production, specified in terms of local labour markets. There has been some discussion of the social definition of skill, the meaning of ‘work’, and the intersection of class and gender relations in particular places at specific times. But the significance of local cultures has been much less carefully theorised, leading to an unnecessarily truncated analysis of urban and regional change. The author suggests some alternative theorisations of ‘local culture’, drawing on concepts of cultural politics (from Stuart Hall), structures of feeling (Raymond Williams), cultural capital (Pierre Bourdieu) and local knowledge (Clifford Geertz). These notions are then applied to the process of arts-related urban reinvestment, and it is concluded that the field of urban and regional studies has much to gain from a more sophisticated understanding of cultural change.

In this paper it is maintained that Raymond Williams's writings on culture are of great importance to current developments in cultural geography. His work is periodised into three stages and its different subject matters identified. An interpretation of Williams's theory of culture is offered which places particular emphasis on his concepts of ‘structure of feeling’ and ‘knowable community’. The creative tension between Williams's holistic treatment of culture and his stress on cultural struggle is examined. The paper concludes with some suggestions on the uses to be made of Williams's work.

The author examines the fundamental categories of geographical thought: region, locality, and place, the keywords in geographical discourse during the 1980s. The relation of these categories to the sociocultural context and the everyday practices of individuals is discussed, and a reinterpretation of the concept of region as a sociocultural and historical category is put forward. The region is comprehended as a historically contingent process whose institutionalisation consists of four stages: the development of territorial, symbolic, and institutional shape and its establishment as an entity in the regional system and social consciousness of the society. During the institutionalisation process a region becomes an established entity—with a specific regional identity—which is acknowledged in different spheres of social action and consciousness and which is continually reproduced in individual and institutional practices. The constitution of the local or regional consciousness of individuals is interpreted through the concept of place, which refers to personal experience and meanings contained in personal life-histories. These concepts together promote an understanding of how regions can be created and reproduced as part of the regional transformation of society and how individuals are contextualised into this process by reproducing region-specific structures of expectations. Generation is suggested as a mediating category for comprehending the relations between region and place.

This paper is an attempt to combat economism in locality studies. New developments in cultural studies, sociolinguistics, and social psychology concerning ideology, culture, and the significance of the analysis of discourses are drawn upon. Although these developments draw upon poststructuralist and postmodern theory it is argued that they are not necessarily antithetical to critical realism. It is concluded that the discursive construction of localities has important material effects.

In this paper the reasons for studying local areas are examined, and in particular the context of the recent Changing Urban and Regional System Initiative in the United Kingdom. The focus is especially on the sociopolitical context of those studies. The argument is that the reasons for studying localities were in this case both historically and geographically specific. Some confusions around locality studies are also examined, in particular their incorrect equation with concrete research, description, the impact of the spatial on the social, and the postmodern. The discussion then turns to some recent arguments, especially those of Harvey, which imply that local foci are not progressive; the various strands of this position are examined and debated. All this raises the more fundamental question of what is meant by the terms place and locality.

The debate about locality studies has provided a focus for wider concerns about method and the relationship of theory and empirical research in urban and regional studies. Discussion of these issues has been plagued by conceptual confusion. Where realist philosophy has been invoked in the debate it has frequently been misunderstood. The problems derive from unexamined and inconsistent usages of a series of dualisms or binary oppositions: viz, contextualising versus nomological (law-seeking) approaches, abstract and concrete, necessity and contingency, theory and empirics, and generality and specificity. When the various uses of these terms are examined it is found that the assumed contrasts either break down or involve more complex relationships than is commonly realised. The main purpose of the paper is to deconstruct the dualisms and expose some of the confusions they generate by reference to the locality debate. A subsidiary theme concerns the way in which different conceptions of generality, specificity, and interdependence form ‘metaphysics’ which tend, unnoticed, to dominate whole research programmes. As different metaphysics may be appropriate for different objects of study it is important to demonstrate their differences and respective limitations.