Page 243 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

17 Invoking the Ontological Realm of Place: A Dialogic Response 217

unique ways for each individual. “To be is to be in a place,” as Casey (1996b) pointed
out. If we reflect on this sentiment, we might conclude that we cannot exist without
being in a place. When, considering the essential yet personal nature of “human
relationship” with “place,” we need to pay attention to how the place comes to “exist”
or “be” in this relationship and what kinds of relationships we have with place.
Relph (1976) explained human relationships with a place using two opposing
attitudes of authentic and inauthentic. While not advocating binary views on human
relationship with place, I think his ideas offer us the conceptual guidance to reflect
on our attitude toward human relationship with a place. An authentic attitude would
nurture a “profound relationship” with a place, and it “comes from a full awareness
of places for what they are as products of man’s intentions and the meaningful set-
tings for human activities, or from a profound and unselfconscious identity with
place” (p. 64). Through understanding and reflection, a person can develop a con-
siderable intensity of association and strong sense of responsibility for the place.
On the other hand, inauthentic attitude involves “no awareness of the deep and
symbolic significances of places and no appreciation of their identities” (p.82). It is
a utilitarian attitude, which keeps a superficial relationship with a very limited (or
lack of) identification or emotional attachment to a place. As Relph (1976) noted,
this attitude of placelessness is becoming dominant and as Jen pointed out it is com-
mon in science education.
According to Relph, “awareness” matters for one to develop an authentic rela-
tionship with a place. I think that awareness comes from one’s realization and
meaning-making of the ontological realm of their place as Karrow and Fazio argued.
I believe place-based education could benefit from making students’ relationships
with a place more explicit, focusing on the kinds of relationship students could
develop with a place and thus acknowledging the ontological realm of a place.
Sheliza: Interesting point Miyoun, I am intrigued by your comment in regards
to the “inauthentic” conceptualization of place. It speaks to place as utilitarian,
superficial, and lacking an appreciation of identity. This reminds me of literature in
cultural and political studies which comment disapprovingly of place as being this
universalist notion that actually represses the diverse and meaningful identities that
people have with place,
The logics of universalism and, more recently, modernization and globalization have
sought to represent localised identities as historical, regressive characteristics, and have
worked to undermine the old allegiances of place and community. … Difference and par-
ticularity will not be wished away by the language of universal rights or international
brotherhood; nor are they fully repressed. (Carter et al. 1993, p. ix)
In the latter half of the quote, Carter et al. reassert the ways in which local differentiation
within communities is not to be “wished away.” Instead, difference supports the
development of new communities of interest and belief. This is believed to be trans-
formative for communities, especially since localized identities are usually repressed
by ruling relations (such as institutions of schooling) and undermined, such that the
traditional ties that communities might have with their land/environment are diluted
with universalist notions. I believe this notion is mirrored in the science classroom, as
students’ diverse/cultural/personal understandings of science and how it exists in their
place, is avoided or ignored in conventional science classrooms. Science educators