Environmental and Place
Phenomenologies
Phenomenologies
Seamon, D. (Kansas State University)
Mugerauer, R. (University of Washington)
Buckner, F. (University of Washington)
Stenovic, I. L. (Simon Fraser University)
The four participants in this panel discuss themes relating to phenomenologies of place and environment. What is the lived
relationship between human actions and meanings, on the one hand; and environments, places, and elements of nature, on the other hand? How, for example, might phenomenological explications generate a more comprehensive knowledge of humanmade worlds like city neighbor-hoods and other urban places? How
might phenomenological understanding
facilitate a deeper concern for natural
resources like water? In the first presentation, Mugerauer and Buckner
draw on the metaphor of “urban social
ecology” to consider hown one Seattle
neighborhood contends with gentrification and speculative development. In the
second presentation, Seamon argues for
a conceptual understanding of urban place re-envisioned synergistically
as an integrated generative field that shapes and is shaped by parts integrally
interconnected in a lived environmental whole. In the last presentation, Stefanovic discusses the typical taken-for-grantedness of water
in the modern world today and asks how that taken-for-grantedness might be brought into explicit focus and thereby
inform more ethical policy for sustainable
water use. Panelists’ presentations are the basis for broader discussion of the possibilities and problems associated with environmental and place phenomenologies. Titles and summaries of the panel’s three presentations are as follows:
1. Resilience Against Displacement: A Case Study of Seattle’s Georgetown Neighborhood
Drawing on evidence from a phenomenological case study of Seattle’s Georgetown neighborhood, this panel presentation illustrates an “urban social ecology” by examining how distressed neighborhoods evade gentrification and attendant displacement of vulnerable communities through apparently deterring features that are not seriously detrimental to residents as they appear to speculative developers. For example, Georgetown preserves several hallmarks of a tightly-knit neighborhood (e.g., a community newsletter, many locally-owned business, and neighborhood parks well used by locals).
2. Understanding Place Holistically: Cities as Synergistic Relationality
This panel presentation describes two contrasting conceptual understandings of place. The approach of analytic relationality interprets places as sets of interconnected, self-contained parts and their relationships. In contrast, synergistic relationality interprets places as integrated, generative fields, the parts of which are only parts as they both sustain and are sustained by the constitution and dynamism of the particular place as a whole. The panelist develops one interpretation of place as synergistic
relationality by highlighting six intertwined, generative place processes: interaction, identity, release, realization, creation, and intensification. The panelist argues that, in relation to urban studies and urban design, a synergistic perspective might contribute to a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the city and urban place making.
3. The Place of Water: Lived Experience and Public Policy
This panel presentation argues that environmental-policy development is ill prepared if it does not address the pre-thematic level of understanding that defines the everyday human experience of water. The emphasis is on how consideration of both explicit and tacit awareness of the crucial importance of water in human life can inform ethical environmental-policy making. How do we frame insightful water policies that inform praxis and prudent decision-making?
Mugerauer, R. (University of Washington)
Buckner, F. (University of Washington)
Stenovic, I. L. (Simon Fraser University)
The four participants in this panel discuss themes relating to phenomenologies of place and environment. What is the lived
relationship between human actions and meanings, on the one hand; and environments, places, and elements of nature, on the other hand? How, for example, might phenomenological explications generate a more comprehensive knowledge of humanmade worlds like city neighbor-hoods and other urban places? How
might phenomenological understanding
facilitate a deeper concern for natural
resources like water? In the first presentation, Mugerauer and Buckner
draw on the metaphor of “urban social
ecology” to consider hown one Seattle
neighborhood contends with gentrification and speculative development. In the
second presentation, Seamon argues for
a conceptual understanding of urban place re-envisioned synergistically
as an integrated generative field that shapes and is shaped by parts integrally
interconnected in a lived environmental whole. In the last presentation, Stefanovic discusses the typical taken-for-grantedness of water
in the modern world today and asks how that taken-for-grantedness might be brought into explicit focus and thereby
inform more ethical policy for sustainable
water use. Panelists’ presentations are the basis for broader discussion of the possibilities and problems associated with environmental and place phenomenologies. Titles and summaries of the panel’s three presentations are as follows:
1. Resilience Against Displacement: A Case Study of Seattle’s Georgetown Neighborhood
Drawing on evidence from a phenomenological case study of Seattle’s Georgetown neighborhood, this panel presentation illustrates an “urban social ecology” by examining how distressed neighborhoods evade gentrification and attendant displacement of vulnerable communities through apparently deterring features that are not seriously detrimental to residents as they appear to speculative developers. For example, Georgetown preserves several hallmarks of a tightly-knit neighborhood (e.g., a community newsletter, many locally-owned business, and neighborhood parks well used by locals).
2. Understanding Place Holistically: Cities as Synergistic Relationality
This panel presentation describes two contrasting conceptual understandings of place. The approach of analytic relationality interprets places as sets of interconnected, self-contained parts and their relationships. In contrast, synergistic relationality interprets places as integrated, generative fields, the parts of which are only parts as they both sustain and are sustained by the constitution and dynamism of the particular place as a whole. The panelist develops one interpretation of place as synergistic
relationality by highlighting six intertwined, generative place processes: interaction, identity, release, realization, creation, and intensification. The panelist argues that, in relation to urban studies and urban design, a synergistic perspective might contribute to a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the city and urban place making.
3. The Place of Water: Lived Experience and Public Policy
This panel presentation argues that environmental-policy development is ill prepared if it does not address the pre-thematic level of understanding that defines the everyday human experience of water. The emphasis is on how consideration of both explicit and tacit awareness of the crucial importance of water in human life can inform ethical environmental-policy making. How do we frame insightful water policies that inform praxis and prudent decision-making?