This essay examines Don Mitchell's 1995 argument that culture should be understood as a dynamic, contested process rather than a static, bounded entity, and explores how this reconceptualization intersects with Tim Cresswell's and Doreen Massey's theories of place. Drawing on Mitchell's critique of essentialist notions of culture, Cresswell's view of place as a site of meaning-making, and Massey's global sense of place as shaped by multi-scalar interactions, the essay argues that all three scholars converge on a shared rejection of fixed, localized understandings. Together, their perspectives reveal culture and place as mutually constitutive, fluid, and inherently contested phenomena.
Mitchell's (1995) article, "There's No Such Thing as Culture," offers an interesting take on the conventional understanding of culture in cultural geography. Mitchell does not deny the existence of culture; instead, he critiques the traditional conception of culture as static and argues against essentialist notions that often define it. He posits that culture is not a bounded or unchanging entity but a dynamic and contested process that is always evolving due to various inputs and moving parts.
This perspective carries significant implications for the conceptualization of place, as discussed by both Cresswell and Massey. Mitchell's central argument is that treating culture as a fixed, localized object obscures the real social struggles and power relations that produce cultural meanings. Rather than existing as a stable backdrop to human life, culture is continuously made and remade through contestation, negotiation, and change.
In his introduction to Place: A Short Introduction, Cresswell (2004) sees place as a site where meanings are contested and produced. He suggests that places are not mere backdrops but are actively involved in the production of culture. This aligns with Mitchell's view of culture as a process, emphasizing the dynamic nature of place. In other words, if culture is always in the making and is contested, then places — as sites where culture is produced and lived — are also sites of contestation.
This means that places are not passive settings but are active in terms of how culture is construed, developed, maintained, perpetuated, and interpreted. Cresswell's framing reinforces the idea that place and culture are mutually constitutive: each shapes and is shaped by the other in an ongoing, open-ended process.
"Place shaped by multi-scalar, evolving interrelations"
Ultimately, Mitchell's reconceptualization of culture as a dynamic process aligns with Cresswell's and Massey's views on place. All three scholars push against static notions, emphasizing the fluidity and contestation inherent in both culture and place. Understanding culture as a process allows for a richer appreciation of the multifaceted and ever-evolving nature of places.
You’re 67% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.