REGIONAL STUDIES, 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1239818

Foregrounding the region

ABSTRACT
Foregrounding the region. Regional Studies. This paper scrutinizes the everlasting but transforming significance of the
concept of region for regional studies and social practice. After tracing the changing meanings of this category, it
highlights one characteristic aspect of the progress of the academic conceptualizations of the region: recurrent
iterations of critiques regarding various forms of essentialism and fetishism. The main focus then moves to the
conceptualization of the region and the articulation of ideas about what regions substantially ‘are’ and ‘do’, and what
makes the region a worthy object of attention (scholarly or otherwise). The paper concludes with a discussion about
the implications of the perspective on regions developed in the article for the future of regional studies.
KEYWORDS
region; conceptualization; foregrounding; spatial fetishism

摘要
突显区域。区域研究。本文探究区域概念之于区域研究和社会实践的持续存在但改变中的显着性。透过追溯此一范
畴意义的改变，本文强调学术对区域的概念化进程中的一个特徵面向：有关各种形式的本质主义和拜物教的重复批
评。本文主要的焦点接着移至区域的概念化，以及有关区域实际上“是什麽”与“做什麽”，以及什麽让区域成为值得
关注的对象（学术或非学术）的概念阐述。本文于结论中，探讨文中所发展的区域视角对未来区域研究的意涵。
关键词
区域; 概念化; 突显; 空间拜物教

RÉSUMÉ
Mise en valeur de la région. Regional Studies. La présente communication examine de près la signification perpétuelle, mais
en évolution, du concept de la région pour les études régionales et les pratiques sociales. Après avoir relevé les significations
changeantes de cette catégorie, elle met en lumière un aspect caractéristique de l’évolution de la conceptualisation
académique de la région: des itérations récurrentes de critiques concernant différentes formes d’essentialisme et de
fétichisme. La communication se concentre ensuite principalement sur la conceptualisation de la région et l’articulation
d’idées sur ce que «sont» et ce que «font» substantiellement les régions, et ce qui fait de la région un sujet digne de
cette attention (académique ou autre). La communication se termine par une discussion sur les implications de la
perspective sur des régions développées dans l’article sur l’avenir des études régionales.
MOTS-CLÉS
région; conceptualisation; mise en valeur; fétichisme spatial

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Thematisierung der Region. Regional Studies. In diesem Beitrag untersuchen wir die unvergängliche, aber veränderliche
Bedeutung des Konzepts der Region für die Regionalwissenschaft und soziale Praxis. Nach einer Nachverfolgung der
veränderten Bedeutungen dieser Kategorie wird ein charakteristischer Aspekt des Fortschritts der akademischen

CONTACT
a
(Corresponding author) anssi.paasi@oulu.fi
Department of Geography, University of Oulu, Linnanmaa, Finland.
b
[email protected]
Division of Urban and Regional Studies, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, KTH – Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 Anssi Paasi and Jonathan Metzger

Konzeptualisierungen der Region hervorgehoben: wiederkehrende Iterationen von Kritiken verschiedener Formen des
Essentialismus und Fetischismus. Anschließend verlagert sich der Hauptschwerpunkt auf die Konzeptualisierung der Region
und die Äußerung von Ideen zum Thema, was Regionen im Wesentlichen ‘sind’ und ‘tun’ und was die Region zu einem
lohnenswerten Gegenstand der (wissenschaftlichen oder anderweitigen) Betrachtung macht. Der Beitrag endet mit einer
Erörterung der Implikationen der im Artikel entwickelten Perspektive der Regionen für die Zukunft der Regionalwissenschaft.
SCHLÜSSELWÖRTER
Region; Konzeptualisierung; Thematisierung; räumlicher Fetischismus

RESUMEN
La región en primer plano. Regional Studies. En este artículo realizamos un escrutinio del significado sempiterno pero en
transformación del concepto de la región para los estudios regionales y la práctica social. Después de hacer un seguimiento
de los significados cambiantes de esta categoría, destacamos un aspecto característico del progreso de las
conceptualizaciones académicas de la región: iteraciones recurrentes de críticas con respecto a las diferentes formas de
esencialismo y fetichismo. Después trasladamos el principal enfoque a la conceptualización de la región y la articulación
de ideas sobre qué ‘son’ y ‘hacen’ básicamente las regiones, y lo que hace que la región sea digna de atención especial
(académica o cualquier otra). Concluimos el artículo con un debate sobre las repercusiones de la perspectiva de las
regiones desarrollada en el artículo para el futuro de los estudios regionales.
PALABRAS CLAVES
región; conceptualización; en primer plano; fetichismo espacial

JEL R5
HISTORY Received 27 May 2016; in revised form 13 September 2016

INTRODUCTION Crawshaw, 2013; Jones & Paasi, 2013; Pike, 2007). Link-
ing in with this tradition of critical enquiry concerning the
It has become practically axiomatic in the social science lit- labelling of particular aspects of the world as ‘regions’ and
erature to note how ‘the region is back’ in both academia the backgrounds and consequences of such practice, the
and wider societal life – in spite of contrasting tendencies key task of this paper is to discuss various ways of fore-
related to globalization and all kinds of flows and networks grounding the region. In linguistics ‘foregrounding’ refers
(Entrikin, 2008; Fawn, 2009; Harrison, 2008; Keating, to the practice of distinguishing a concept from the sur-
2004). Debates on the differences between specific regions rounding words or images. The main discursive vehicle
and the justification of regional divisions have not been for achieving this effect with regards to discussions about
merely academic exercises. Countless governmental bodies, regions is naturally through the deployment of the ‘key-
committees and planning offices in dramatically variegated word’ par excellence of such debates: the concept of region
political and geographical settings around the world have itself (cf. Williams, 1983). The present paper takes a mani-
been involved in such deliberations, with or without fest interest in how this concept has evolved and been
academic support, as state and quasi-state governance mobilized over the past decades by scrutinizing the varie-
arrangements continuously remain the major context for gated meanings that have been attached to it in academic
both sub- and supra-state regionalization and region- research. Thus, its main focus is to trace and review concep-
building efforts (Moisio & Paasi, 2013). tualizations of the ‘region’, that is, how scholars have articu-
As part of the evolution of this wider political land- lated and justified ideas about what regions substantially
scape, academic scholars have contributed to guiding ‘are’ and ‘do’, activities that have continually enacted the
debates and shaping new rationalities by launching new- region as a worthy object of attention (scholarly or
fangled terms into discussions on regions and regionalism. otherwise).
Categories such as city-region, mega-region, learning The paper particularly focuses on the metageography or
region, creative region, competitive region, resilient region spatial imaginary of the research field (e.g., Haughton &
or bioregion, for example, have attached new meanings to Allmendinger, 2015; Murphy, 2008). As argued by Mur-
the abstract idea of region. The burgeoning plethora of phy (2008, p. 9), metageographical conceptions are impor-
such widely circulated regional–conceptual hybrids in tant because they play a powerful role in organizing and
both academic literature and in the language of regional shaping understandings of the world, and therefore, by
development think-tanks and planning organizations extension, also influence action (cf. Faludi, 2012). Our
further attests to how academic debates about the nature approach to the topic is guided by a broadly defined prag-
and characteristics of regions are rooted in complex and matist sensibility. Partly following Barnes (2008), a prag-
contestable social, economic and political dynamics matist approach to concepts is understood here as calling
(Barnes, 2011; Bristow, 2010; Paasi, 2010, 2011). for an attentiveness to the situated definition of terms
For decades, Regional Studies has functioned as a med- within partially connecting (or not) communities of prac-
ium for a critical discussion around such terms (e.g., tice and epistemic communities, and to investigate the

REGIONAL STUDIES
 Foregrounding the region 3

drivers and outcomes of conceptual innovations. Further, it of the idea of region, which must also be understood as
implores the researcher never to assume that there is one part of a wider social history (Koselleck, 2002). The histori-
‘correct’ way of defining a concept, which would somehow cal exposition serves to demonstrate that the transform-
capture the essence of its supposed object. In line with such ation (or rather, the perpetual rethinking) of the concept
a sensibility, within the context of the paper, the conceptual of region is by no means a new tendency, but how the
history of the region is understood not as a step-wise pro- pace of invention and reproduction of spatial keywords
gression towards some form of essential truth about what nonetheless seems to be accelerating (Agnew, 1989;
the region ‘really is’, but rather as attempts at grappling Barnes, 2011; Harrison, 2008; Paasi, 2011). After this
with spatiotemporally located intellectual, political and the modus of enquiry is shifted to a manner more akin to
social challenges.1 conceptual pedagogy (Deleuze & Guattari, 1994) to discuss
Consequently, the arguments put forth in the paper rest the implications of one specific aspect of the evolution of
upon a conviction that it is impossible to understand aca- academic conceptualizations of the region, namely, the
demic struggles between competing conceptualizations of recurrent waves of criticism regarding various forms of
the region in a productive way if one treats them as some- essentialism and fetishism, that is, the supposedly erro-
how separate from the wider political and social ‘career’ of neous assignment of coherence and agency to things such
the region–concept and without recognizing that aca- as regions. This debate is then turned somewhat on its
demics are by no means the only ones who sometimes crea- head through the posing of the question if, in a relationally
tively, sometimes unreflexively (re)conceptualize regions. complex world, there is any way to conceptualize anything
Undoubtedly, spatial concepts such as ‘region’ to some without risking falling prey to some variant of this critique.
degree function as contestable totems for academic fields Perhaps conceptualization always entails a form of fetish-
and other spheres of professional and political practice, ism, and the interesting questions to ask rather come to
and the act of their perpetual redefinition is simultaneously concern the situated consequences of adopting specific
an illustration of academic struggle over symbolic capital/ ways of ‘carving up’ and putting labels on various aspects
prestige and a powerful mirror of wider societal, often of the (regional) world. The paper then wraps up with a
state-related developments and concerns (Paasi, 2011). discussion of some of the implications of the perspective
Such power struggles recurrently involve the caricaturing put forth in the paper for the future of regional studies as
and denouncement of one’s predecessors or contestants an academic discipline.
competing conceptualizations as problematic, naïve or
unscientific. In recent decades this has in the academic WHAT REGIONS ARE AND DO:
debate over the nature of regions often played out as con- CONCEPTUALIZING ‘THE REGION’
secutive series of accusations of essentialism or fetishism
between various schools/traditions of regional studies. It was for a long time typical in the practice of the newly
From the heat of such denunciations, it becomes apparent institutionalized regional geography to search for formal
that contrasting conceptualizations make a difference regions (labelled as natural and later geographical regions)
through producing diverging ontological politics (Mol, on various grounds (nature, culture, coexistence of various
1999).2 In relation to this, it is particularly noteworthy elements) and ultimately put them onto maps.3 Dis-
that contemporary understandings of the ‘regional world’ tinguishing and isolating such regions from each other
to some degree universalize the notion of the region and was a crucial part of this activity. Regions were understood
blur the conceptualization of regions with that of basically to be products of research process whether they were seen
all other key spatial categories such as territory, place, scale as ‘really existing entities’ or ‘mental devices’ (cf. Blaut,
or network. This ‘ontological slipperiness’ of the concept of 1962; Minshull, 1967), and the purpose of studying them
region within contemporary geography and regional studies was generally conceived to be the production of maps
is further evinced by how it is excluded from Jessop, Bren- that gave a specific territorial shape and name to a region
ner, and Jones’s (2008) elaboration of a possible framework in the wider regional matrix. In practice, both approaches
for defining the relations between these other key concepts depended upon a ‘bordering’ process carried out by the
of geography. As a consequence, there appears to emerge a researcher, but there nonetheless existed a deep ontological
need to ask – perhaps provocatively – if regional studies as division between the two approaches that has stayed with
a discipline becomes less relevant in a world in which regional studies ever since. This chasm runs between basi-
‘regions’, as they are currently understood at the research cally a naturalist–realist ontology, on the one hand, and a
front of regional studies specifically and social theory gen- more pragmatist sensibility, on the other. The first of
erally, on the one hand appear to be everywhere, but on the these considers there to be an underlying ‘natural’ or at
other hand appear to lack any form of attention-grabbing least ‘real’ object, the region, which can be uncovered
specificity. The question arises: what difference does it through analysis, i.e., correctly picked out and ‘traced’.
make, in such a world, to insist on defining certain rela- From this angle the interesting question is, ‘are we getting
tional entities as ‘regions’ – and why is this important? it right or wrong?’, and the answer will be ultimately
In order to fulfil the ambitions set forth in this intro- decided by the quality of the analysis. The other proceeds
duction, the paper proceeds in two steps. The first part of from a completely different implicit question: is there
the paper provides an – inevitably brief – investigation some utility and relevance to labelling and treating certain
into the conceptual history of the academic understanding aspects of the world as ‘regions’? Kimble’s (1951) answer

REGIONAL STUDIES
4 Anssi Paasi and Jonathan Metzger

was critical: regional geographers may be trying to put geographers produced definitions of regions and regional
boundaries that do not exist around regions that do not divisions as a result of their research process. By bringing
matter! For many other representatives of regional geogra- together various strands of critique against quantitative
phy the answer was much more positive, while being typi- regional science, and further adding influences from simul-
cally contestable (Agnew, 1989; Harrison, 2008). taneous developments in social theory and philosophy, scho-
After the Second World War a new ambition to control, lars accentuating the structuration of practice and power
manage and plan regional systems emerged. Capitalist relations in space–time advanced new views on regions
urbanization and industrialization and the related concen- and moved attention to individual and institutional prac-
tration of population and the economy created uneven devel- tices/discourses that mediated agency and social structures.
opment and urban problems. Systematic approaches to A region was now seen as an ‘actively passive meeting
economic, urban and transport issues accentuated func- place of social structures and human agency’, which is
tional/nodal regions, relative location and interaction – an ‘lived through, not in’ (Thrift, 1983, p. 38), a historically
idea that had been emergent in geography already before contingent process (Pred, 1984), or a process of institutiona-
the war (e.g., Walter Christaller in Germany) (cf. Barnes, lization where certain territorial, symbolic and institutional
2011; Paasi, 2011). The rise of regional science and the shapes emerge as part of the transforming spatial division
quantitative revolution entailed a search for abstract spatial of labour (Paasi, 1986). For some scholars the effort to
patterns/forms, which were treated as logical, geometric rea- advance regional geographies inescapably claimed new
lities, underlying and to some degree separate from the con- philosophical/methodological solutions to the problems of
textual meanings of social life. The traditional regional context, causation, ethnography and narrative. They saw rea-
geographic inwards-oriented language of unity/particularity list philosophy particularly useful for developing new critical
(manifesting in such terms as synthesis, uniqueness, holism, regional geographies (Sayer, 1989; cf. Agnew, 1989).
whole, totality, organism, personality, etc.) was rejected by Geographers increasingly regarded regions as social con-
regional scientists. Spatial–analytical approaches instead structs that were produced/reproduced by social actors in
purposely distanced their network-based kinetic functional and through variegated social practices and discourses.
conceptualization of the region from any form of inwards The region is thus not thought to be ‘constructed’ or ‘dis-
oriented, holistic regional thinking (Haggett, 1965). covered’ by scholars, but is rather apprehended as the out-
The rise of critical regional studies soon led to responses come of contestable ‘region-building’ or regionalization
against the objectivist and often strongly positivistic char- processes. Rather than just geographers themselves, actors
acter of quantitative regional science: on the one hand, it such as politicians, entrepreneurs, journalists, teachers or
was seen to be blind to power dynamics and, on the voluntary associations were thought to assume key pos-
other, to fail properly to take into account the subjective itions as activists and advocates in the process of articulat-
nature of human experience. Based on these two different ing the meanings and functions attached to regions. In
points of critique, the proponents of Marxist and humanis- relation to these, the role of the scholar becomes that of tra-
tic approaches revitalized the studies of regions, the former cing and documenting the unfolding of such processes and
problematizing regions in relation to uneven development the roles of actors/social relations through which regions
(Massey, 1978), the latter highlighting the significance of become, transform, achieve meanings and may ultimately
regional identities and spatial experiences (Buttimer, become deinstitutionalized. Within this ‘New Regional
1979). The key agency in the making of regions in Marxist Geography’ literature, agency and power relations involved
accounts is the accumulation of capital, which is related to in the construction of a region are generally considered to
uneven capitalist development. Massey (1978), for extend both inside and outside of such regions as processes,
example, suggested that the analysis of uneven develop- constituting and opening the region towards a wider insti-
ment should not start from any prespecified, fixed regiona- tutional matrix of economic, political and cultural relations.
lization of space but rather investigate the patterns of However, important questions, such as who or what it is
capital accumulation, from which geographical analysis that ‘constructs’ a region or what this construction means
must then produce the concepts in the terms of the spatial in terms of social practice or power relations, often
divisions of labour. Massey’s sensitiveness to history led her remained unanswered or were answered in partial, contra-
to develop the famous ‘geological metaphor’: the develop- dictory ways (Paasi, 2010).
ment of spatial structures can be viewed as a product of
the combination of ‘layers’ of the successive activity (Mas- Relational/poststructuralist conceptions of
sey, 1984, p. 118). Hudson (2002, 2007) in particular has region
developed Marxist political economy approaches further One highly significant methodological (and ontological)
in the analysis of the production of places/regions. question that arises in the wake of previous developments
is whether ‘social construction’ denotes the process of con-
Regions as social constructs structing regions or some ready-made products of such con-
Marxists and humanistic views provided a critical stepping struction (cf. Hacking, 1999). This issue is crucial for
stone towards so-called ‘new regional geography’. This was regional studies since it raises a critical methodological
a heterogeneous set of theoretical approaches where social question regarding the relation between history and the
practice was seen as the key ‘source’ of regions, in contrast region, i.e., whether the region is understood in terms of
to the preceding ‘discipline-centric’ perspective in which ‘being’, that is, a fixed entity or neutral background/

REGIONAL STUDIES
 Foregrounding the region 5

medium for social processes, or something that is perpe- of reification, since ‘[a] given actor–network is not confined
tually ‘becoming’ as part of these social processes, i.e., is to a finite, homogeneous territory demarcated by clear-cut
itself a process. boundaries; rather it carries the potential of infinite expan-
Echoing Pred’s (1984) and Paasi’s (1986, 1991) early sion due the unproblematic incorporation of all the kinds of
works, several scholars now conceptualize regions as histori- actors, however different, the network may mobilize’ (Ped-
cally contingent processes that are ‘becoming’ rather than ersen, 2009, p. 140). However, many commentators have
just ‘being’, and thereby querying the relevance of ever paint- called for the need to move beyond the territorial/relational
ing a synchronic ‘still life’ of a regional configuration, with- binary that has characterized such debates (Allen &
out taking into regard the wider relational arrangements in Cochrane, 2007; Cochrane & Ward, 2012; Harrison,
time and space as well as the power relations that uphold, 2013; Varró & Lagendijk, 2013). Painter (2010), for
perpetuate or transform this pattern. They further argue example, suggests that ‘territory’ and ‘network’ are not
the need for considering the potential (or rather, highly incommensurable or rival principles of spatial organization.
likely) prospect that the present configuration may just be For him, territory is primarily an effect – and such a ‘terri-
but a snapshot, a temporary stabilization (of lesser or greater tory effect’ can best be understood as the result of net-
duration), of one specific moment in a ‘coming together’ of worked socio-technical practices. Hence, the current
heterogeneous trajectories of change (Massey, 2005). Con- resurgence of territory or region can be seen as itself a pro-
temporary academic interest in regions, following this kind duct of relational networks.
of rationality, can be labelled as a relational–topological Of course the ‘real-world’ problem is – and this was
approach that is often nourished by post-structuralist think- sometimes perhaps underestimated during the early period
ing which has inspired much of the regional research agenda of relational thinking – that while in some cases boundaries
since the late 1990s. Some scholars have been keen advo- are quite insignificant, in other cases they are more persist-
cates of relational approaches (Allen, Cochrane, & Massey, ent and make a difference. A certain boundedness is often a
1998) and understand regions as entities shaped by social ‘fact of practice’ since many regions are actually territories
relations and networks made up of complex linkages and deployed within the processes of governance, and are
flows with a specific territorial reach. From this viewpoint made socially meaningful entities in processes characterized
also boundaries are results of networking and connections by multifaceted power relations. Recent research on the
(Murdoch, 2006; Painter, 2010). Rather than being a neat changing forms of regional governance has highlighted
fixed level in a nested scalar hierarchy, the relations sustain- the traversing and interrelated character of the ‘territorial’
ing the region are understood to stretch far beyond its ima- and ‘relational’ rather than seeing them as separate or
gined territorial and scalar borders in Euclidean space. even opposite ontological realms (Cochrane & Ward,
Other scholars have offered often sympathetic critiques of 2012; McCann & Ward, 2010). It is therefore crucial to
straightforward one-sidedly relational views (Harrison, scrutinize the territory/network constellation as embedded
2008, 2013; Jones, 2009; Metzger, 2013; Metzger & in social practice (planning, governance, politics) rather
Schmitt, 2012; Varró & Lagendijk, 2013). than assuming an abstract ontological rupture between
To many commentators, the pertinence and relevance the territorial and relational. The functions of borders
of regions and regional geography has been fundamentally should be understood contextually in relation to social
challenged as a consequence of transforming socio-spatial practice in order to reveal their possible constitutive roles
and power relations and the ongoing, sometimes radical, reor- in the making, management and control of territorial
ganization of social, political and cultural spatialities around spaces and social action (Paasi & Zimmerbauer, 2016).
the world – sometimes collectively referred to as ‘globaliza- Respectively, regional planning, for example, operates
tion’ (cf. Scott & Storper, 2007). In response, some scholars more often with ‘penumbral’ rather than fixed borders:
have sought to rethink, for example, the global regional geo- the former can be at the same time meaningful in some
graphies of the world system of production (Taylor, 1988), planning-related social practices and rather meaningless
while others accentuate the need to trace the changing in some others. Thus, one has to ask how the region per-
regional worlds of distribution, often in the context of the formed in relation to some entities and relations rather
new geopolitics of city-regionalism (Jonas, 2012). Another than other, at what time and place this occurs, and by
group has taken a more overtly politically engaged position whom such performativity is mobilized (Metzger, 2013).
and suggests that the opening of borders is a major challenge To learn from this, one needs to study how these relations
for a progressive (social) science and politics (Massey, 2005): play out in practice, where different conceptualizations of
most (con)temporary regions ‘stretch’ in space so that their space in general, and regions in particular, have no problem
social contents/relations are networked across borders. Such of sitting beside one another and co-mingling, untroubled
networking modifies and reconstitutes regions/borders, and by academic tribulations and claims about their supposed
gives rise to a complex, dynamic topology where distance mutual exclusivity (Metzger, 2013).
and proximity fold in numerous ways (cf. Allen, 2016).
Some relational geographers go further and contend VARIETIES OF FETISHISM (AND THEIR
that to talk about bounded regions is a misconception of CRITICS)
the networks and flows that actually exist and which are
unduly ‘reified’ under the label of ‘region’. Hence, talking The conceptualization of the region is certainly not merely
about regions as bounded entities blinds one to this act a ‘what it is’ problem in regional studies or even in social

REGIONAL STUDIES
6 Anssi Paasi and Jonathan Metzger

practice, but also pertains to the perhaps even more vexing capital, that matter – and what are recognized as ‘regions’
question of ‘what it does’ (cf. Agnew, 1989). Is the region are merely the material and/or ideological–fictitious reflec-
to be understood as a prime mover of action, i.e., does it tions of such processes. Consequently, statements such as
have ‘agentic capacities’, or is it conceptualized as ‘merely’ ‘the region does this or that’ or ‘it is in the interest of the
mirroring other, supposedly more primary powers? This region’ thus obfuscate the real interests and actors, e.g.,
conundrum concerning ‘what regions do’ invites one to of economic classes.
revisit debates about spatial fetishism that were opened up
by critical geographers a long time ago, and then to look Fetishizing in regional practice and research
at some fresh alternatives. Who are, then, those criticized for generating spatial
The term ‘fetishism’ has, in a generic sense, been used fetishism today? The recent resurgence of the region has
in social science to denote some form of misattribution of led to a situation in which the region is increasingly
agency, which in the broad Marxist tradition of social taken for granted as a (bounded) setting or background
science has also been associated with the notion of ‘reifica- for diverging social processes. It has been suggested above
tion’: an obfuscation of the relations that produce or sustain that this occurs not only in academic fields but also in
a specific entity or arrangement. In Marxist traditions of regional media, education, planning and governance. To
social science, this has primarily been discussed in terms give some examples, in strategic regional planning it is
of commodity fetishism, whereby the social relations that characteristic to represent regions as actors that make
enable the production of a specific market goods become decisions, struggle with each other or promote themselves
hidden from view when the product is inserted into mar- (Bristow, 2010; Pike, 2011). In the media, regions, nations
ket-based systems of exchange. This in turn generates or cities are portrayed as partaking in a ‘struggle’ and ‘beat-
relationship between goods that only become comprehend- ing each other’ in economic issues and cultural achieve-
ible in narrowly economic terms, i.e., as relative economic ments. Regional actors increasingly try to transform
values, thus obscuring the social relations of production regions into products that are marketed as attracting
of the goods in question. Spatial fetishism, in turn, refers packages to individuals, families or businesses that are
to an understanding in which the relations between social seduced to regions in various roles: as tourists, workers,
groups or economic classes are interpreted as relations employees, etc. Marketing/promotion everywhere uses
between areas, as if one region (one section of ‘space’) such strategies in fetishizing the region/place.
would be, for example, exploiting another region or ulti- Another form of fetishizing can be labelled as a ‘pre-
mately that a given social structure would be determined scientific’ understanding of regions, wherein the region is
by spatial relations (Anderson, 1973; Urry, 1985). For Gre- taken for granted as a mere neutral background of social
gory (1978), the ‘fetishism of area’ refers to thinking of issues, discounting the political history and institutional
regions as entities that can interact with other regions, as biography of any region (Paasi, 2010). Such understand-
if they constitute a world apart from society. Such fetishism ings are partly due to the position given to region in con-
also characterizes the discourse of competition between texts such as governance, planning and regional
states, willingly used by politicians in their rhetoric. development and is fed by different interpretations of the
Critiques of fetishism take various forms. For Marxists real-world needs for regionalization processes. The conso-
spatial fetishism reifies what in reality is the product of lidating forms of governance in the European Union have
capital/class dynamics. For humanistic geographers it rei- markedly advanced such an understanding. One central
fies what in reality are psychological–linguistic ideas that medium was the creation of the European Union’s
subjects employ to orientate themselves in the world. NUTS (Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics)
What unites these streams of critique is that they all disap- region system, i.e., the authorization of spatial units that
prove of the direct or indirect attribution of agentic are used at various spatial scales as the basis for the creation
capacities to space or spatial entities such as regions in and maintenance of statistical information on ‘regions’ and
relation to the organization of social relations and meaning. that standardizes a nested understanding of what are the
They further point to how such fetishism often obscures European regions. The NUTS system was established by
the making, becoming and performativity of regions as EUROSTAT in order to help governance, management
results of societal power relations, struggles and ideologies. and the ‘harmonization’ of the spatial practices in Europe.
This complexity is an everlasting challenge for critical scho- Formally, the ‘Europe of regions’ thus consists of given
lars and, as Soja (1989, p. 6) states: administrative regions represented in official statistics
(Bristow, 2010; Paasi, 2010). The NUTS classification is
We must be insistently aware of how space can be made to powerful in ‘objectifying’ European regional spaces: it
hide consequences from us, how relations of power and dis- defines regional boundaries, and has been the base for the
cipline are inscribed into the apparently innocent spatiality of allocation of European Union structural aid.
social life, how human geographies become filled with politics In academic circles, the aforementioned forms of pol-
and ideology. icy-related or ‘lay’ fetishisms to some degree constitute
easy targets. However, things get more sensitive when the
The key message of these commentators is that while sharp edge of critique is instead turned towards one’s
regions seem to act and do things, in reality it is other forces, own academic colleagues. Nonetheless, every new school
often among this group of authors assumed to be those of of regional geography in one way or the other has criticized

REGIONAL STUDIES
 Foregrounding the region 7

its predecessors of some form of essentialism or fetishism. Problematizing the notion of agency and the
In one of the most recent recurrences of such critiques, relational region
Suorsa’s (2014) review of almost 100 articles on regional
innovation systems research demonstrates that the concep- A stable and somehow fixed image of preceding traditions of
tualization of region is typically marginalized in such regional geography seems to have become a caricature for the
studies; innovations systems are more often than not seen representatives of newer approaches. Thus, new approaches
to be located in regional settings that are taken for granted. often accentuate the missing historical reflexivity in their ear-
Christopherson and Clark (2007) have explicitly criticized lier counterparts; complaining about their positing of the
the representation of regional units as ‘actors in themselves’ bounded character of regions and the fixity and inwards-
in economic geography, and Asheim (2009, p. 174), for his looking orientation in the previous, supposedly more ‘tra-
part, criticizes fetishizing the idea of ‘learning region’ and ditional’ perspective. They in consecutive turns blame each
states that ‘regions cannot learn, only firms and organiz- other of a lack of scientific rigour or varieties fetishism. How-
ations can’ (cf. Cumbers, Mackinnon, & McMaster, ever, with some notable exceptions (e.g., Graham, 1990),
2003; Hassink & Klaerding, 2012). what these critics often appear to be only dimly aware of is
However, even though the critique of spatial fetishism is that they themselves generally all in turn implicitly lean
alive and well within regional studies – and further, one against something supposedly firmer and ‘more real’, as a
would argue, has functioned as a quilting point for many purportedly solid ontological ground that can be used as a
productive and important academic debates – critics of leverage point to denounce the ‘mere illusions’ that are pro-
spatial fetishism are in turn criticized by social constructi- blematically reified by others. All could therefore in turn be
vists for essentializing and unduly privileging other drivers, criticized for propagating various forms of reductionism,
such as capital dynamics, in their accounts. Complaints of and generating reifications of, if not regions in themselves,
essentialism are directed against the reduction of multifa- then classes in themselves, networks in themselves, capital
ceted, dynamic and complex realities to ‘one or a few funda- in itself, etc. – enacting regions as mere reflections or symp-
mental causes’ (Graham, 1990, p. 54). Graham (1990) toms of these supposedly more ‘real’ forces. Thus, it could be
shows that generalizing accounts drawing on macro-level argued that critiques that only aim at debunking fetishisms
social or political economy explanations frequently comprise do not really serve to foreground the region, but rather to
an essentialist element when directly or indirectly highlight- background it; or more specifically, they foreground it
ing, e.g., capital accumulation, capitalist relations within momentarily, so that it can then be dismissed as a mere
production, the class struggle, production or profitability reflection of some supposedly more real, underlying force
as the prime drivers of social and spatial change. The same or agent such as ‘globalization’, ‘capital’, etc.
broad critique of essentialization can of course be levelled Could there be a way out of this vicious circle of critique,
against claims that firms and organizations, supposedly in which to an external observer could sometimes appear as a
contrast to regions, can ‘learn’ – given that many organiz- dog chasing its own tail? A way out that does not rely on
ational scholars in turn would argue that they indeed cannot, claiming some solid ontological ground as a basis for knock-
and that only humans are capable of this. A conclusion ing the bottom out of others’ conceptualizations? At least
which then again in itself would be questioned by social one attempt at providing such an ‘irreductionist’ approach
scientists influenced by post-humanist strands of philos- is the version of actor–network theory (ANT) provided by
ophy, who would claim that such a statement would consti- Bruno Latour. In ANT, careful attention is paid so as not
tute a reification or essentialization of individual ‘humans’ as a priori to ‘reify’ or privilege any form of force or entity as
some form of autonomous units, which in turn would indi- more primary than another (Latour, 1988, 2005). Rather
cate a failure to recognize that any form of individual subjec- than taking terms such as ‘actors’ or ‘networks’ as given
tivity in effect constitutes a relational arrangement of start- or endpoints of enquiry, ANT treat such concepts
variegated sets of genetic material, social relations, cultural as practical handles on a world that is in itself always richer
traditions, ideology, institutions, etc. Situating critiques than our descriptions of it – but where the use of specific
against spatial fetishism within such a wider contextual concepts make a difference by performatively bringing
frame sheds a light on how these arguments often have together and highlighting certain aspects and back ground-
been underpinned by problematic un-interrogated assump- ing others (see also Latour, Jensen, Venturini, Grauwin, &
tion that humans (or capital, class, culture) are somehow Boullier, 2012; Mol, 2010; Paasi, 2008). It plays with the
integral and coherent actors, and in themselves not battle- definition of, for example, ‘networks’ and ‘actors’, arguing
grounds for various conflicting economic, political, cultural, that one often can learn new things about the world by
ideological and biological drives, pushing their action in approaching what one normally would call a ‘network’ as
various directions. From such a vantage point, the positing an ‘actor’, an entity that produces some form of agency;
of anything as an actor ‘in itself’ becomes problematic, and and then also turning this around to analyse an ‘actor’
an example of what Haraway (1997) calls corporeal fetishism, instead as a ‘network’ made up of entangled, mutually affec-
which entails ‘mistaking heterogeneous relationality for a tive heterogeneous components, stretching both within and
fixed, seemingly objective thing’, by way of which ‘inter- outside of the boundaries of a recognized entity – and where
actions among heterogeneous actors are mistaken for agency is understood to be relationally produced in such net-
self-identical things to which actions might be applied’ works (cf. Abrahamsson, Bertoni, Mol, & Martin, 2015;
(Haraway, 1997, pp. 142–143, original emphasis). Johansson & Metzger, 2016; Latour, 2005).

REGIONAL STUDIES
8 Anssi Paasi and Jonathan Metzger

From the vantage point of such an approach, ‘reifica- of certain ‘structures of expectations’ for these units. Such
tion’ and ‘fetishism’, i.e., the ‘picking out’ and ‘cutting structures are the basis for the narratives of identity, mobil-
loose’ of singular objects from complex and entangled ization of collective memory, and they also constitute the
webs of constitutive relations, and then attributing some visible and invisible social ‘gel’ based on values, norms
form of power of agency to them, become crucial human and ideologies (Paasi, 1991).
practices for navigating in a world marked by ubiquitous So what is the point of the above, fairly extensive, digres-
and wicked relational complexity. This is also the explicit sion into ANT-inspired conceptualizations of the region? Is
argument made by Law (2015): in an in-itself messy and it to argue that finally the ‘right’ and ‘true’ way to represent
over-rich world of complexly overlapping similarities and and conceptualize regions has now been found? Given the
differences, any conceptualization in academic or other previously presented pragmatist sensibilities of this enquiry,
context demands simplifications that foreground some any such idea would of course be completely off-hand.
sets of relations and attributes while backgrounding Rather, this approach has been recounted in some detail
other. Humans simply must and do ‘fetishize’ all the time because it productively speaks to an identified weakness in
to get some manageable handles on a relationally complex previously dominant ways of conceptualizing regions.
world of open or semi-bounded systems.4 Indeed, it Specifically, in this case, it offers affordances for the
becomes completely necessary to conduct such simplifica- researcher to extricate her analysis from the previously
tions to ever be able to act in the world, or one would be described fetishism–conundrum. Viewed from the vantage
constantly overcome by a sense of overwhelming point of these previous debates, this way of rethinking the
complexity. region may indeed appear to be sensible and pertinent, see-
Following Law (2015), the question is how to conduct ing that it offers a way around an identified problem that
such conceptualizations, in the form of foregrounding and previous conceptualizations had trouble negotiating. How-
simplification, in a responsible way – by staying attentive to ever, this by no means implies that this way of conceptualiz-
the effects of one’s choices and making oneself conscious of ing regions somehow would be a complete, eternal or total
what becomes made important and what is excluded from solution. As long as the region remains an interesting cat-
any particular way of conceptualizing some phenomenon. egory of social and scholarly practice, also this approach
As a consequence, fetishization cannot be seen as an evil will with time most certainly be superseded as a consequence
in itself. However, what becomes tantamount is trying to of increasingly obvious internal contradictions, and con-
make oneself aware of the practical consequences of any stantly growing lacunae with regards to its explanatory
specific mode of fetishization or reification. The interesting power vis-à-vis the continually evolving worldly processes
question becomes how self-aware one is in doing so and it pertains to index and relate to.
also to stay attentive to the wider implications and conse- Just to mention one such obvious and troubling weak-
quences of just how one fetishizes or reifies. ness of an ANT-inspired way of conceptualizing the
What about regions in such a relational world? Social region, it can definitely be argued that in such a very
constructivist and poststructuralist approaches to regions broad and general definition of the nature of regions,
have helped engender an understanding of these entities what is gained in explanatory power is lost in specificity
as composite actors, ‘made to act by many others’ (Latour, and context sensitivity. Hence, the question arises what
2005, p. 46), where those ‘others’ lie topologically and the particular but common attributes (e.g., various insti-
topographically both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the everlastingly tutions, practices, symbols) of the entities labelled as
reconstructing, material and discursive socio-spatial process regions really are in contrast to any other type of spatial
that becomes labelled as ‘the region’, and where variegated entity that arguably could be considered to be constituted
actors contribute to producing (often contested) accounts and held together by similar attributes and mechanisms
and narratives of such regions as to some degree constitut- (cf. Paasi, 1991)? What is it that ‘regions’ have in common,
ing coherent and definable entities. Work of regionaliza- which at the same time differentiates them from (or links
tion and ‘region-building’ is performed not only by them with), for example, ‘nations’, ‘places’ and ‘localities’?
economic, political and cultural/media elites in the pro- For at the same time as the radical poststructuralist
duction/reproduction of regions and identity narratives, approaches suddenly enable analysts to label very many
but also in everyday practices and in the work of, for phenomena around the world as ‘regions’ of some kind
example, regional planners and developers, as well as and extent, the question nevertheless follows: what good
through such mundane material structures such as trans- does this do? That is, what difference does it make to con-
port infrastructures (Metzger, 2013; Paasi, 2013). ceptualize something as a ‘region’, ‘carving it out’ and lab-
Regions are thus envisaged as complicated constella- elling it as such, and not in a different way? This question
tions of materiality, agency, social relations and power; as can, of course, productively be posed in an analytical
institutional structures and processes that are continuously modality, turned towards, for instance, all the political
‘becoming’ instead of just ‘being’. They are based on a com- and professional groups that throw this concept around
plex interplay between non-discursive and discursive prac- in their everyday practice and discourse, asking what differ-
tices and patterns. Various time scales come together in ence it appears to make in their practice to enact ‘regions’ in
such processes. Similarly, heterogeneous social institutions various ways; but the question also has a normative dimen-
such as culture, media and administration are crucial in sion that poses a challenge to regional studies as an
these processes and in the production and reproduction academic pursuit.

REGIONAL STUDIES
 Foregrounding the region 9

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION sense, including, for example, social and political environ-
ment)? This could be a group of practitioners, a group of
Academic debates about the development and refinement residents, politicians, researchers, or any mix of these and
of various analytical spatial concepts do not only constitute others. The interesting thing is, of course, that they can
esoteric wordplays. Rather, they are enmeshed in wider all define this object in different ways, thus generating
societal power dynamics in which the stakes often are regions in the guise of often ‘non-coherent’ and ‘fuzzy’
high, even if not always directly visible. One such stake, ‘multiple objects’ that are ‘more than one but less than
which is fairly obvious, is certainly the fate and prospects many’, and characterized by a curious ‘fractional coherence’
of specific academic disciplines – which are dependent on that is often fraught by frictions and contradictions (Law,
prestige and apparent relevance, leading to funding and 2004; Metzger, 2013).
influence within and outside academia. Viewed from this Such an understanding further demands that academic
angle, it could be argued that the subdisciplines of regional analyses of regional issues do not only turn attention to
geography and regional studies, building upon the logic of when people ‘out there’ (e.g., activists or policy prac-
the importance of ‘foregrounding the region’, in this regard titioners) are ascribing regionality, analysing why ‘they’
are dependent upon a sustained interest in the concept of treat/define something as a region in practice, and looking
the ‘region’ and that which it purports to denote. This at what difference does this make. It also highlights the
foundation has been put into doubt by claims set forth need for the academic researcher to interrogate her own
since the 19th century, suggesting that the region will role in producing/reproducing ascriptions of regionality
fade away along with the consolidating modernity and in her work, and to ask herself: what difference am I mak-
related state-centric spatiality (Keating, 1998). It is obvious ing – how am I intervening in worldly affairs – by doing
that such predictions have been if not completely erroneous this? If one recognizes that the world is much more com-
then at least grossly premature (e.g., Addie & Keil, 2015; plex than what can be grasped with the conceptual tools
Parker & Harloe, 2015; Soja, 2015). Part of this persever- available at any given time (Paasi, 2008), and that there
ance is based on the intimate relation between the state and are always innumerable ways to analyse and correlate poss-
the region: the region, especially when conceptualized as a ible conceptual ‘holds’ on the world – what kind of scho-
sub-state political territory, is a critical constituent of the larly practice would such an insight call for? To begin
territorial politics and governance of modern states and with, it would require of researchers in regional studies
its rise into a privileged scale of activity is itself a result of always to ask questions such as: What difference does it
politics, policies and power (Christopherson & Clark, make if one conceptualizes some spatial entities as ‘regions’
2007). or not? What difference does it make to package and enact
Thus, regions appear to have persistent relevance and a set of heterogeneous relations as a ‘region’? What sup-
allure, both for academics and policy practitioners alike. plement does it add to see something, or rather – treat it
Then again, understandings of what a region is and does – specifically as a ‘region’?
have shifted considerably in the course of decades. The Further, and perhaps somewhat more uncomfortably, it
region is today generally conceptualized as a flexible, malle- would perhaps also require turning the question ‘what does
able and mutable object of analysis. ‘Unusual’ regions (Deas it do?’ not only towards regions and those who enact them
& Lord, 2006) appear to pop up everywhere, if one just within, for example, the spheres of politics and professional
looks closely enough. This brings a new focus to the prac- practice, but also towards the subdiscipline of regional
tical enactment of various ways of being/becoming a studies. This certainly demands that the regional studies
‘region’ and, for lack of better terms, ‘modes of regionality’ scholar interrogates, with critical (self)distance, her own
or ‘ways of becoming region’. If there is not anything that is research practices: in which concrete ways do specific
basically ‘regional’, but nevertheless a whole lot of (con- approaches co-produce the objects of their interest? And
tested) patterns out there in the world that seem meaning- further, how do they organize attention towards certain
ful to be labelled as ‘regions’ for some purposes, and that issues and away from others? What is being made absent/
some groups of people also label as such, what is it that present in various ways of analyzing regions, and to what
makes them hang together as regions? This certainly relates consequences? More broadly: what are the explicit or
to some degree to the old question of ‘regions in them- implicit ontologies, epistemologies and normativities of a
selves’ versus ‘for themselves’, but also demands the recog- specific way of performing regional studies? And finally,
nition of that there are then innumerable regions ‘in as well as perhaps also most dauntingly: what are the situ-
themselves’ out there all the time, criss-crossing in partial ated but patterned ethico-political effects of performing the
connections (Metzger, 2013). So the ‘for themselves’ concept of ‘region’ specifically, and regional studies more
becomes perhaps an even more pertinent question. This generally, in this or that way?
in turn brings back into focus the ‘subject of regionality’:
who/what is ascribing regionality to an entity (or even
de-/ascribing it as gifted with ‘regional identity’)? And ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
what organizing work are actors performing to make the
region become ‘for itself’ by holding steady, reworking or The authors thank three anonymous reviewers for their
challenging aspects of their environment (in a very broad comments.

REGIONAL STUDIES
10 Anssi Paasi and Jonathan Metzger

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REFERENCES

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the Abrahamsson, S., Bertoni, F., Mol, A., & Martin, R. I. (2015).
authors. Living with omega-3: New materialism and enduring concerns.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33, 4–19.
doi:10.1068/d14086p
Addie, J. P., & Keil, R. (2015). Real existing regionalism: The region
between talk, territory and technology. International Journal of
FUNDING Urban and Regional Research, 39, 407–417. doi:10.1111/1468-
2427.12179
Anssi Paasi thanks the Academy of Finland for funding the Agnew, J. (1989). Sameness and difference: Hartshorne’s the Nature
RELATE Center of Excellence [project number 272168]. of geography and geography as areal variation. In J. N. Entrikin &
D. S. Brunn (Eds.), Reflections on Richard Hartshorne’s the Nature
of geography (pp. 121–139). Washington, DC: Association of
American Geographers (AAG).
Allen, J. (2016). Topologies of power. London: Routledge.
NOTES Allen, J., & Cochrane, A. (2007). Beyond the territorial fix: Regional
assemblages, politics and power. Regional Studies, 41, 1161–1175.
1. This lack of concern with correspondence-based doi:10.1080/00343400701543348
understandings of truth is one of the central components Allen, J., Cochrane, J., & Massey, D. (1998). Rethinking the region.
of pragmatist though, perhaps most succinctly expressed London: Routledge.
Anderson, J. (1973). Ideology in geography: An introduction.
in William James’s famous dictum that if ‘no bell in us
Antipode, 5, 1–6. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.1985.tb00330.x
tolls to let us know for certain when truth is in our grasp, Asheim, B. (2009). Learning regions. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift
then it seems a piece of idle fantasticality to preach so (Eds.), International encyclopedia of human geography, Vol. 6 (pp.
solemnly our duty of waiting for the bell’ (James, 1897, 172–178). London: Elsevier.
p. 30). That is, even if there were a ‘right’ or a ‘wrong’ Barnes, T. J. (2008). American pragmatism: Towards a geographical
way to grasp things, how would one ever know when one introduction. Geoforum, 39, 1542–1554. doi.org/10.1016/j.
got it ‘right’ except by way of intersubjective agreement or geoforum.2007.02.013
Barnes, T. J. (2011). From region to space I. In J. Agnew & J. S.
pragmatic, experimental testing and application?
Duncan (Eds.), A companion to human geography (pp. 146–160).
2. Our way of apprehending the term ‘ontology’ is influ- Oxford: Blackwell.
enced by the so-called ‘ontological turn’ within science Blaut, J. (1962). Object and relationship. Professional Geographer, 14,
and technology studies (e.g., Woolgar & Lezaun, 2013, 1–7. doi:10.1111/j.0033-0124.1962.146_1.x
2015). Respectively, one does not approach the subject of Bristow, G. (2010). Critical reflections on regional competitiveness.
ontology in a prescriptive–speculative sense by making London: Routledge.
claims about the supposed nature of reality, but rather Buttimer, A. (1979). Insiders, outsiders and the geography of regional
life. In A. Kuklinski (Ed.), Regional dynamics of socioeconomic
one takes an interest in the study of ‘ontology in practice’
change (pp. 155–175). Tampere: Finnpublishers.
and its situated effects, that is, the ideas people hold Christopherson, S., & Clark, J. (2007). Remaking regional economies.
about how the world works and the components that con- London: Routledge.
stitute it, and what difference such ideas make (cf. Johans- Cochrane, A., & Ward, K. (2012). Researching the geographies of
son & Metzger, 2016; Joronen & Häkli, 2016). policy mobility: Confronting the methodological challenges.
3. It is characteristic for historians of geography to trace Environment and Planning A, 44, 5–12. doi:10.1068/a44176
the differences between various national schools of thought Collinge, C. (2005). The différance between society and space: Nested
scales and the returns of spatial fetishism. Environment and
and their views on what regions are and regional geogra-
Planning D: Society and Space, 23, 189–206. doi:10.1068/d360t
phers do. Such comparison is certainly fruitful (Agnew, Crawshaw, R. (2013). Guest Editor. Introduction: Politics, econ-
1989; Barnes, 2011). However, the focus of the following omics and perception in regional construction. Regional Studies,
discussion is particularly upon contrasts and differences 47, 1177–1180. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.781427
in key aspects of the conceptualization of regions. While Cumbers, A., Mackinnon, D., & McMaster, R. (2003). Institutions,
one is well aware that the foregrounding of the region power and space: Assessing the limits to institutionalism in econ-
has occurred to some extent simultaneously on several omic geography. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10, 325–
342. doi:10.1177/09697764030104003
interrelated, contested terrains, not neatly in the form of
Deas, I., & Lord, A. (2006). From a new regionalism to an unusual
successive rounds of theorization, limitations of space regionalism? The emergence of non-standard regional spaces
here mean the process will be described in a manner that and lessons for the territorial reorganisation of the state. Urban
to some degree oversimplifies the national complexities of Studies, 43, 1847–1877. doi:10.1080/00420980600838143
the historical unfolding of these developments. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? London: Verso.
4. Law (2015) does not explicitly use the term ‘fetishize’, Entrikin, J. N. (Ed.). (2008). Regions: Critical essays in human geogra-
but utilizes the terminology developed by Rittel and Web- phy. London: Ashgate.
Faludi, A. (2012). Multi-level (territorial) governance: Three criti-
ber (1973) to discuss the ‘taming’ of ‘wicked problems’.
cisms. Planning Theory and Practice, 13, 197–211. doi:10.1080/
However, see Latour (2010) on ‘factishes’. Collinge 14649357.2012.677578.
(2005, p. 201) also makes what appears to be a related argu- Fawn, R. (2009). ‘Regions’ and their study: Wherefrom, what for and
ment, based on Derrida’s notion of the ‘spectral logic of the whereto? Review of International Studies, 35(S1), 5–34. doi:10.
fetish’. 1017/S0260210509008419

REGIONAL STUDIES
 Foregrounding the region 11

Graham, J. (1990). Theory and essentialism in Marxist geography. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London:
Antipode, 22, 53–66. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.1990.tb00197.x Routledge.
Gregory, D. (1978). Ideology, science and human geography. New York: Law, J. (2015). Working well with wickedness (CRESC Working
St. Martin’s. Paper No. 135). Milton Keynes/Manchester: Centre for
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Research on Socio-Cultural Change (CRESC).
Harvard University Press. Massey, D. (1978). Regionalism: Some current issues. Capital and
Haggett, P. (1965). Locational analysis in geography. London: Edward Class, 2, 106–125. doi:10.1177/030981687800600105
Arnold. Massey, D. (1984). Spatial divisions of labour. Basingstoke:
Haraway, D. J. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. Macmillan.
FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and technoscience. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.
New York: Routledge. McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2010). Relationality/territoriality: Toward
Harrison, J. (2008). The region in political economy. Geography a conceptualization of cities in the world. Geoforum, 41, 175–184.
Compass, 2(3), 814–830. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00113.x doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.06.006
Harrison, J. (2013). Configuring the new ‘regional world’: On being Metzger, J. (2013). Raising the regional leviathan: A relational–mate-
caught between territory and networks. Regional Studies, 47, 55– rialist conceptualization of regions-in-becoming as publics-in-
74. doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.644239 stabilization. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Hassink, R., & Klaerding, C. (2012). The end of the learning region Research, 37, 1368–1395. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12038
as we knew it; towards learning in space. Regional Studies, 46, Metzger, J., & Schmitt, P. (2012). When soft spaces harden: The EU
1055–1066. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.705823 strategy for the Baltic Sea region. Environment and Planning A,
Haughton, G., & Allmendinger, P. (2015). Fluid spatial imaginaries: 44, 263–280. doi:10.1068/a44188
Evolving estuarial city–regional spaces. International Journal of Minshull, R. (1967). Regional geography: Theory and practice.
Urban and Regional Research, 39, 857–873. doi:10.1111/1468- Hutchinson: London.
2427.12211 Moisio, S., & Paasi, A. (2013). From geopolitical to geoeconomic?
Hudson, R. (2002). Producing places. Oxford: Guilford. The changing political rationalities of state space. Geopolitics,
Hudson, R. (2007). Regions and regional uneven development for- 18, 267–283. doi:10.1080/14650045.2012.723287
ever? Some reflective comments upon theory and practice. Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In
Regional Studies, 41, 1149–1160. doi:10.1080/ J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor–network theory: And after (pp.
00343400701291617 74–89). Oxford: Blackwell.
James, W. (1897) The will to believe. In The will to believe and other Mol, A. (2010). Actor–network theory: Sensitive terms and enduring
essays in popular philosophy (pp. 1–31). New York: Longmans, tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 50,
Green. 253–269.
Jessop, B., Brenner, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Theorizing socio-spatial Murdoch, J. (2006). Post-structuralist geography. London: Sage.
relations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26, Murphy, A. B. (2008). Rethinking multi-level governance in a chan-
389–401. doi:10.1068/d9107 ging European Union: Why metageography and territoriality
Johansson, N., & Metzger, J. (2016). Experimentalizing the organiz- matter. GeoJournal, 72, 7–18. doi:10.1007/s10708-008-9161-9
ation of objects: Re-enacting mines and landfills. Organization, Paasi, A. (1986). The institutionalization of regions: A theoretical
doi:1350508415624271. framework for understanding the emergence of regions and the
Jonas, A. E. G. (2012). City-regionalism: Questions of distribution constitution of regional identity. Fennia – International Journal
and politics. Progress in Human Geography, 36, 822–829. of Geography, 164, 105–146. doi:10.11143/9052
doi:10.1177/0309132511432062 Paasi, A. (1991). Deconstructing regions: Notes on the scales of spatial life.
Jones, M. (2009). Phase space: Geography, relational thinking, and Environment and Planning A, 23, 239–256. doi:10.1068/a230239
beyond. Progress in Human Geography, 33, 487–506. doi:10. Paasi, A. (2008). Is the world more complex than our theories of it?
1177/0309132508101599 TPSN and the perpetual challenge of conceptualization.
Jones, M., & Paasi, A. (2013). Guest Editorial: Regional world(s): Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26, 405–410.
Advancing the geography of regions. Regional Studies, 47, 1–5. doi:10.1068/d9107c
doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.746437 Paasi, A. (2010). Commentary: Regions are social constructs but who
Joronen, M., & Häkli, J. (2016) Politicizing ontology. Progress in or what constructs them? Agency in question. Environment and
Human Geography. doi:0309132516652953. Planning A, 42, 2296–2301. doi:10.1068/a42232
Keating, M. (1998). The new regionalism in Western Europe. Paasi, A. (2011). From region to space II. In J. Agnew & J. S. Duncan
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. (Eds.), A companion to human geography (pp. 161–175). Oxford:
Keating M. (Ed.). (2004). Regions and regionalism in Europe. Blackwell.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Paasi, A. (2013). Regional planning and the mobilization of ‘regional
Kimble, G. H. T. (1951). The inadequacy of the regional concept. In identity’: From bounded spaces to relational complexity. Regional
L. D. Stamp & S. W. Woolridge (Eds.), London: Essays in Studies, 47, 1206–1219. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.661410
geography (pp. 151–174). London: Longmans, Green. Paasi, A., & Zimmerbauer, K. (2016). Penumbral borders and plan-
Koselleck, R. (2002) The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, ning paradoxes: Relational thinking and the question of borders
spacing concepts. Stanford: Stanford University Press. in spatial planning. Environment and Planning A, 48, 75–93.
Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: doi:10.1177/0308518X15594805
Harvard University Press. Painter, J. (2010). Rethinking territory. Antipode, 42, 1090–1118.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00795.x
Press. Parker, S., & Harloe, M. (2015). What place for the region?
Latour, B. (2010). On the modern cult of the factish gods. Durham: Reflections on the regional question. International Journal of
Duke University Press. Urban and Regional Research, 39, 361–371. doi:10.1111/1468-
Latour, B., Jensen, P., Venturini, T., Grauwin, S., & Boullier, D. 2427.12175
(2012). ‘The whole is always smaller than its parts’ – a digital Pedersen, M. A. (2009). At home away from homes: Navigating the
test of Gabriel Tardes’ monads. British Journal of Sociology, 63, Taiga in Northern Mongolia. In P. W. Kirby (Ed.), Boundless
590–615. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012.01428.x worlds (pp. 135–152). Oxford: Berghahn.

REGIONAL STUDIES
12 Anssi Paasi and Jonathan Metzger

Pike, A. (2007). Editorial: Whither regional studies? Regional Studies, Journal of Geography, 68, 207–215. doi:10.1080/00291951.
41, 1143–1148. doi:10.1080/00343400701675587 2014.924025
Pike, A. (Ed.). (2011) Brands and branding geographies. London: Taylor, P. J. (1988). World-systems analysis and regional geography.
Edward Elgar. Professional Geographer, 40, 259–265. doi:10.1111/j.0033-0124.
Pred, A. (1984). Place as historically contingent process: Structuration 1988.00259.x
and the time–geography of becoming places. Annals of the Thrift, N. (1983). On the determination of social action in space and
Association of American Geographers, 74, 279–297. doi:10.1111/j. time. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1, 23–57.
1467-8306.1984.tb01453.x doi:10.1068/d010023
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory Urry, J. (1985). Social relations, space and time. In D. Gregory & J.
of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730 Urry (Eds.), Social relations and spatial structures (pp. 20–48).
Sayer, A. (1989). The ‘new’ regional geography and problems of nar- London: Macmillan.
rative. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 7, 253– Varró, K., & Lagendijk, A. (2013). Conceptualizing the region – In
276. doi:10.1068/d070253 what sense relational? Regional Studies, 47, 18–28. doi:10.1080/
Scott, A. J., & Storper, M. (2007). Regions, globalization, develop- 00343404.2011.602334
ment. Regional Studies, 41, S191–S205. doi:10.1080/ Williams, R. (1983). Keywords. London: Fontana.
0034340032000108697 Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2013). The wrong bin bag: A turn
Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern geographies. London: Verso. to ontology in science and technology studies? Social
Soja, E. J. (2015). Accentuate the regional. International Journal of Studies of Science, 43, 321–340. doi:10.1177/
Urban and Regional Research, 39, 372–381. doi:10.1111/1468- 0306312713488820
2427.12176 Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2015). Missing the (question) mark?
Suorsa, K. (2014). The concept of ‘region’ in research on regional What is a turn to ontology? Social Studies of Science.
innovation systems. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian doi:0306312715584010.

REGIONAL STUDIES