Landscape, justice and the quality of life in emblematically embodied nation/states – the case of Denmark

The modern notion of the landscape of the nation-state, we argue, emerged in part through an ‘emblematic’ fusion of the nation, imagined as a bio-organic body-politic, and the state conceptualised in geo-metric terms as the Euclidean, cartographic framework within which that body operates. The eliding of the geo-metric with the bio-organic has influenced national discourse, law and practice by defining the legal and social right to belong within this landscape in bio-spatial terms. This is exemplified by the international political cause célèbre of the ‘Schleswig-Holstein Border Question’ and its continuing ramifications for the quality of life in Denmark—particularly for those living in the landscapes of state-designated immigrant ‘ghettoes’ scheduled for physical and social eradication because their settlements are perceived as endangering the bio-spatial cohesion of the ‘nation-state’

David and Max Lowenthal - and Marsh: public intellectuals and advocates in the political landscape. A personal view

Taking its point of departure in the prominent, and controversial, legal, political and social engagement of David Lowenthal's lawyer father, Max Lowenthal, this article first explores the evident influence of Max Lowenthal on his son's distinctive, socially engaged approach to scholarship and writing as an academic, and as a public intellectual. It will then consider how Max Lowenthal's example facilitated David Lowenthal's subsequent lifelong involvement with the work of another publicly engaged and multifaceted lawyer, George Perkins Marsh. This background can help understand why David Lowenthal was himself a multifaceted advocate, whose work appealed to a broad readership of academics, professionals and laymen. Focusing on David Lowenthal's writings from the beginning of his career until his death in 2018, the essay will illuminate the political landscape of his thinking and doing concerning cultural and environmental heritage

Representation and alienation in the political land-scape

The question of representation in the definition of landscape is arguably at the nexus of important theoretical issues in the social sciences and humanities, and is in evident need of clarification. A key but largely overlooked concept in the debate on landscape and representation is the concept of alienation and, by extension, the concepts of commodification and reification. This paper will first examine the relation between landscape representation and alienation in terms of its substantive historical meaning, the transferral of ownership of rights in the land=property and the loss of rights which effectively makes one an alien, or foreigner, in the land. It will then examine this relationship in terms of the philosophical concern with alienation and objectification, particularly as explicated by the literary scholar and philosopher Georg Lukaacs

The European nation's Nordic nature

Aineisto on Opiskelijakirjaston digitoimaa ja Opiskelijakirjasto vastaa aineiston käyttöluvist

« Used » Landscape’s Cultural Heritage Contra « Virgin » National Nature

Conservation, whether it be of landscape or nature, is necessarily rooted in human culture, because the perception of what is landscape, and what is nature, and why a given landscape or area of nature is important, is a human judgment. This article focuses on the cultural idea of heritage, and its role in determining why certain landscapes, conceptualized as being « natural », are conserved. It argues that « used », as opposed to « virgin », landscapes have a particular appeal because they have been preserved from generation to generation as a form of common inheritance that individuals do not own, but « merely look after it for the next generation ». To illustrate the point it takes its point of departure in a highly successful watch advertisement that uses this phrase as its slogan.La conservation du paysage et de la nature fait nécessairement partie de la culture humaine. En effet, c'est du jugement humain que naît la perception du paysage et de la nature, mais aussi le choix de leur donner de l'importance ou non. Cet article examine la notion culturelle de patrimoine, et son rôle dans les décisions de conserver certains paysages, considérés comme « naturels ». Il soutient que des paysages « de seconde main » par opposition à « vierges », ont un intérêt spécifique puisqu'ils ont été préservés de génération en génération comme une sorte de patrimoine commun qu'aucun individu ne possède, mais « dont on prend seulement soin pour les générations futures ». L'argument de départ pour illustrer cela est une publicité très célèbre de montre qui utilise cette phrase comme slogan

Alan R. H. Baker & Gideon Biger (eds.): Ideology and Landscape in Historical Perspective

Alan R. H. Baker & Gideon Biger (eds.): Ideology and Landscape in Historical Perspective Anmeldes af Kenneth R. Olwi

Er friluftsliv meningsløst. Giver det mening at skelne det fra sport?

Af Kenneth R. Olwig, Dansk Idrætshistorisk Forening - Krop og Kultur, Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 199

Er friluftsliv meningsløst. Giver det mening at skelne det fra sport?

Af Kenneth R. Olwig, Dansk Idrætshistorisk Forening - Krop og Kultur, Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 199