What I think Barbara L. Allen's Thesis was.

 What Barbara L. Allen's thesis was. 

Kelsey Cornelius 

I believe that Barbara L. Allen was trying to get at a bigger point than what the writing let on. She talked about people and their identities. She also talked about how some authors stay inside a bubble when it comes to talking about culture. With these things in mind, I think her thesis is something along the lines of “ Cultural and architecture say a lot about one’s region, and that can contribute to someone’s Identities.” I think this because she says that in the first paragraph and continues touching on those points through her paper. 

 Zahary Woodrum

01/25/2021

WRTG 111

                                            Barbara Allen Thesis

   Regionalism in architecture is a big discussion of the topic on Allens piece, Many quotes are brought to attention in this piece. First I would like to address Allen's thoughts on “culture”. Stated that “culture is the totality of the behavior, beliefs, customs, habits and knowledge” Simply the identity of someone living somewhere. I also feel as if Allen is sort of making regionalism and culture play hand in hand. Meaning they are almost the same to an extent of ideas.

 Also refers to somewhere being “place-identified” Meaning someone from the south being considered a southern because of where they grew up. West Virginia you have mountain people, cannibals (supposedly), Kentucky you have hicks & hillbillies, rednecks. These are just titles that people like to place on other people due to the background of where they grew up at. It's all slang terms and assumptions from your typical human. 

   “A region is a socially constructed concept, I define a region as a collection of geographically located identities” Barbara says, Personally, I get that. As I continue to read this paragraph on “region” I compare what she is saying to what I have seen first hand. 

   In Lexington KY, there is a cultural area that is like a little Mexico with all kinds of small booths and shops that you can purchase goods from, People of the area (Mexicans) also give a mexican cultural touch to it. Selling freshly grown vegetables to people passing by. It's similar because Barbara Allen mentions New York having a little China or little Italy in certain areas of the state. I’ve witnessed it. “The region is the context for cultural practices and comes to have meaning via those activities” As allen sums up the word “region” with this saying.

   Allen is addressing the people as a whole. She gives many ideas on architecture and regionalism. The main thesis here is that regionalism and architectural play vital roles in each other. Look at the culture but also look at the way people are living, what they do. How they move and what they believe in. Structural buildings. How they are made. What they are made of. When they were made. All of these are what makes regionalism, what makes the culture of a place.

   I feel a sense of intelligence with the ideas given in this piece. She seems very well informed with her opinions of the many topics.

Response paper- What is Allen’s thesis?

Tyler Tyler Berg

1/24/2021

3:30 PM-5:00 PM

Barbara Allen’s Thesis and How It Is Supported

I believe that Barbara Allen’s thesis statement in her essay, “On Performative Regionalism” is, “What is needed in architecture and urban design are more robust tools for understanding the intersection of cultural practices and regional places.” She intends to show the reader some of these tools. She supports this thesis statement in several effective ways. Some of her more convincing arguments I feel are word choice, detailed examples, and explanations of actual places or experiences.

Barbara Allen uses two main words in her essay and does a great job helping the reader to realize that they are the key words by stating, “ A view of regional design through some focused, well-theorized social and cultural lenses provides one set of tools. For this I turn to two important concepts, performativity and habitus, which together provide a richer understanding of how we can design for regional identity.” She then goes on in later paragraphs to provide definitions of these words which help to explain them to the reader. She first uses performativity in saying, “To use the language of Judith Butler on performativity I contend that ‘regionalism’ is not a noun or set of free floating attributes. Rather it is performatively produced by practices of regional coherence.” This helps the reader understand her definition of regionalism and how important performativity is to it. She then explains habitus as, “part of a field of variables and dynamic interactions that would also include the physical space in which practices and social norms take place.” Barbara Allen wants us to realize how important it is for the architect of a place to create a space for these “practices and social norms” within the region.  These keywords are used to show the reader “one set of tools used to understand intersecting regional places and cultural practices.”

 By defining and using quotes from other recognized people to explain these words Barbara effectively uses logos and ethos. Logos is demonstrated by her down to earth explanations and usage of these words. Ethos is also established when she references others in her definitions such as Judith Butler and Pierre Bourdieu. By including these people she establishes that she is knowledgeable of their works and is therefore credible in this context.

Barbara establishes pathos by using detailed examples and explanations of actual places or experiences to spark emotional interest. This makes the reader feel like it isn’t just some boring paper on regionalism but instead a paper with stories and accurate details. For example she uses the story of an architect from Canada presenting to a class from Louisiana to help better explain her argument. The architect mentions the importance of having a good view and the class tells him that it isn't important where they are because “there is no view.” The architect then asks about the things that are important to them in building. They say that the most important thing to them is having open spaces to gather in. This perfectly explains that architecture is meant to promote regionalism by allowing and providing space for the social aspect of that place to continue.

In conclusion I believe that Barbara Allen supports and argues for her thesis statement extremely well. She effectively uses word choice and storytelling to establish logos, pathos, and ethos. This shows us the tools to use when trying to understand the intersection of cultural practices and regional places as well as the important roll of architects in providing an appropriate space for the intersection to happen.

Rigdon Hermann - Regional Architecture: Cultural Practices vs. Style

 Rigdon Hermann

Rich Simpson

WRTG 111

January 25, 2021

Regional Architecture: Cultural Practices vs. Style

In Allen’s manuscript on performative regionalism, she talks about how previous work has emphasized regional architecture over cultural practices. “Good regionalist architecture is 90% cultural practices and 10% style.” In previous work, while architecture was often linked to questions of cultural identity, architectural theory has often been linked almost exclusively with structural form. Tzonis, for example, speaks briefly about the “building as a place supporting human interaction,” and then illustrates his article with images of buildings without people. 

Allen suggests that regions are more than their physical attributes. For example, Allen contends that, “‘regionalism’ is not a noun or a set of free-floating attributes. Rather it is performatively produced by practices of regional coherence. It is constituting the thing it is purported to be.” Their intended purposes and uses they promote can change depending on their architecture style or design. Barbara Allen uses the example of when she invited an environmental architect from Vancouver to speak about design elements to people who lived in the bayou region of southern Louisiana. The people who lived in Vancouver wanted their homes to have a “view”, whereas the houses that were in Louisiana, only had a swamp for a view. The Louisianans valued more open homes with larger outdoor spaces to have room for dancing, large family gatherings and celebrations. Comparing these two very different regions demonstrates how the purpose and intention of regional architecture can change drastically depending on where it is, and what the structure is.

Allen observes that the regional feel of a place is “10% built form, 90% defined by what people do. The desire for public spaces on the part of all classes and races in our society, is a positive for the architectural profession and the culture as a whole.” Regions are not defined just by their historical or physical attributes. Architecture is not regional if it simply looks a certain way, it must have purpose and meaning behind it. One’s house may look different inside, and be built to a different style. However, none of this means anything unless the people living there use it for their cultural gatherings or traditions. 

I agree with Allen’s thoughts on architecture and culture. For example, my family loves to get together on birthdays and holidays for large dinners with all our extended family. Our homes have an open layout, accessible in nice weather to the outdoors. It had never occurred to me that my home is oriented to a cultural setting rather than a structural setting, we really do not have a view here, but we have lots of room to hang out. But after reviewing Allen’s ideas on structure and culture, I agree with her statements. 

Rigdon Hermann

Rich Simpson

WRTG 111

January 23, 2021

Mumford and Berry: A Contrast and Comparison

Mumford and Berry define the term regionalism, how it has changed over time, and how we need to realize that culture transcends geographical and social boundaries. Mumford’s definition of regionalism stems from the idea of how every civilization and group of people are interconnected in their culture and technology. 

Regionalism is not a matter of using the most available local material, or of copying some simple form of the construction that our ancestors used, for want of anything better, a century or two ago. Regional forms are those which most closely meet the actual conditions of life and which most fully succeed in making a people feel at home in their environment: they do not merely utilize the soil but they reflect the current conditions of culture in the region. (100) 

Berry discusses regionalism, and states that culture is tied to the historical land usage by a particular group of people. “‘The land,’ …  ‘is scarred by [history] and the grass is greener for what the land holds.’” Although they go about it in different ways, they both agree that there is an important connection between developing cultures and land usage. 

Mumford talks about how people settled in one location and improved the land through wise usage. For example, people that settled in the upper Midwest of the United States developed cultures based around a grain and dairy farming industry. Several succeeding generations of the same family would stay on the land and use it exactly the same as their ancestors did. This inspired them to tend to the land and take care of it and continue and improve its productivity. There was an overall tendency in these communities to stay in a relatively small area. People in these communities lived the same lifestyles, they spoke with the same regional dialects, they went to the same churches, their architecture was the same, and they rarely moved far away from their families. 

Berry talks about how a culture is not tied to the land, and how it breaks the connection of responsible land usage. People are more mobile now and tend to spend less time in a particular place. This is particularly reflected in the more recent times where travel is so much easier, and resources are more readily available. When people move now, they take what is familiar to them. For example, if one were to move across the country, they would take their recipe book with them, they would look for chain stores and businesses that were at their former location, they’d probably stick with the same insurance companies, and drive the same brand of cars. 

Mumford and Berry were basically a generation apart. Consequently, the backgrounds of their writings came from different time perspectives, which influenced the direction of their arguments. World War II was a huge watershed separating their generations. The United State’s involvement in World War II had a great influence on the history of development in the country. Before World War II, America was basically an agricultural country. Families tended to stay in the communities where they were born, they lived their lives there, and their offspring lived theirs there too. Industry was not well modernized in the sense of mass production across the country. The transportation system in the United States was not capable of efficiently moving agricultural products from one part of the country to the other. Berry’s manuscript was published in 1972, 30 years after the major cultural and industrial changes that resulted from the experiences of World War II. Beginning in the 1950s, the United States developed a huge modern interstate transportation system that permitted moving goods and people quickly from one side of the country to the other. This made it very easy for people to travel and relocate to wherever they wanted. They could easily attend schools and accept jobs far away from their original home.

Lewis Mumford Response - Wendell Berry V.S Lewis Mumford

 Cameron Okins

Richard Simpson

WRTG 111

    Lewis Mumford’s Excerpts From The South in Architecture focuses heavily on the construction and development of America and how it represents his idea of Regionalism. Starting from the colonist’s arrival the author follows how early settlers adopted European influence into their architecture, rather than that of the local natives. Mumford then goes on to explain that despite A European basis, the type of materials available aided in the modification of early American architecture into what it is today. Following this brief history lesson, our author states that although the lack of resources contributed to American architecture, it was their adaptation to, and overcoming of, those limits that developed American regionalism.

    For the rest of the writing, Mumford talks about the various ways people adapted to their environment and how that relates to his definition of regionalism. For instance, on page 100 Lewis Mumford says, “The right grape is not always indigenous to the spot where the best wine can be made. It takes generations before a regional product can be achieved.”. He uses this example to express how the grape, despite its limits, adapts to the environment and makes something special. He then expresses how this extends to explain how regionalism is not about what’s most available or copying something else. It’s about “reflecting the current conditions of culture in the region.”.

    “One other error,” Mumford says, “must be guarded against, and this is the notion that the regional should be identified with the self-sufficient.”. He explains how within his definition, every regional culture has a universal side to it. That is, all regional cultures are open to influence from external sources. This influence, he says, is the “drama of human development.” Furthermore, because of this every culture must “both be itself and transcend itself, to make the most of its limitations and surpass them.”.

    In essence, the definition that Lewis Mumford so eloquently describes in this writing is one that, unlike that of Wendell Berry’s, I personally agree with. Mumford equates regionalism with not just the shallow idea of your history with a region, but the culture of a region and the influences placed on it. Mumford’s definition acknowledges the constantly changing nature of regionalism and why overcoming limits is crucial to a region’s growth. This acceptance of differing needs of cultures and their regions is a rather refreshing viewpoint and differs heavily from the relatively narrow scope of Wendell Berry’s definition.

Zachary Woodrum

1/21/2021

WRTG 111-3:30-5pm

                                  Lewis Mumford/Wendell Berry Response Paper

First thing i noticed from the start is the different time frame this piece is written compared to

 

Berrys (1941 & 1972) it also was re-published a time ahead (1967) that being said lewis was

dealing with a more struggled, rugged time period. Lewis speculates on adaptation of land, The 

forthcoming. Earlier time periods before a place really even develops the stamp of how and

 when a place is nationalized. He emphasizes a point that structurally speaking a lot of what is 

in America now was brought over or taught by other countries. Europe, Sweden, Northern 

Mexico. “The gradual adaptation of European modes of construction to American climatic and 

technical conditions is one of the most interesting sides to our architectural history” Lewis says.

Surprisingly log cabins were not a primitive adaptation from america, it was imitation

 from the swedes. Which what they used in sweden was a more convenient form of cabin

 building, which they also used with military defense.

Lewis adds a memory of a time he was leveling a roof on his own farmhouse and the chief of 

carpentry was just railed at the format of this “clumsy” mode of construction he called it. He then 

stated that you could use less manpower and less lumber, yet still attain a suitable if not better 

farmhouse (as the chief was used to living in)

Lewis speaks a lot on the architectural side of regionalism, whereas Berry did not. 

“The forms of building that prevail in any region reflect the degree of social discovery and self 

awareness that prevails there” was an interesting remark I found. He thinks that having a high or 

low intelligence of how and what you are building plays a key role in how well it will prevail in 

later years. Lewis thinks of regionalism starting with the people. If they feel hospitality within the 

environment, you know that homey feel. They reflect on the natural conditions and adapt 

accordingly. Adapting within people is a key factor in Lewis’s thought of regionalism. But i do 

Feel a sense of them trying to get their ideas out to the whole world itself. They seem to 

speaking about everyone as a whole. They think it's important for everyone to realize what 

regionalism is and how it has and will continue to change over the years.

Wendell Berry Response

 The Regional Motive response blog post.

Kelsey Cornelius 

In the Regional Motive by Wendell Berry, he talks about how the word “Regional” can be embarrassing. Wendell Berry thinks that the word has a sloppy definition. Wendell Berry also talks about “Regionalism”. Berry says there are two different definitions of this word. One of those is “Regionalism” which is based upon pride and one that is based upon Condescension.

Wendell also talks about the south he says that to understand the south you need to look at their history. Wendell berry pulls a quote from Corrington and Williams that says “the land is scarred by history and the grass is greener for what the land holds.” Wendell thinks that the land can be scarred in history but the grass can not be greener than it already is.  Wendell Berry pulled quotes from a lot of different people and interpreted them in his writing. This passage for me was a little confusing of to what he was trying to say. This could be the time period of peace.

I think in this peace he is trying to say that to have a full understanding of what a place is like you need to know its history. You can’t just go and see it.

Response Paper- How is Mumford similar to and different from Berry?

 Tyler Berg

1/20/2021

3:30 PM-5:00 PM

 Similarities and Differences Between Mumford and Barry in the Context of “The Regional Motive” and “The South in Architecture”

Wendell Berry and Lewis Mumford can agree on one thing, that is that regionalism or a sense of place take time to acquire. They both argue that one can’t learn what a place is about or how to live there by just visiting. They differ, however, in that Berry believes regionalism is an in-depth knowledge about a place that takes time to acquire, living sustainably from the land using the resources around you, and separating one’s self from joining in society’s “urban nomadism,” while Mumford believes that while a diverse and in-depth knowledge of a place is required, one must also build upon and adapt the ideas of other societies to fit the particular region.

Mumford establishes logos in his writing by using history and known facts to give credibility to what he is writing. For example, he says “although houses of clapboard and shingle were known both in Holland and in England in the seventeenth century, it took some experience of a North American winter before the half-timbered houses of typical Elizabethan design were covered over with an extra layer of clapboard to prevent leakage and to preserve warmth; and it was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that our typical light frame construction, with an airspace to serve for insulation, became a characteristic American form.” By saying this he effectively proves that, although the ideas were known, Americans needed time to gain the experience of the land around them to use and adapt known technologies to fit them. Barry establishes logos in a different way. He establishes it by pulling quotes from known writers and logically disproving them. For example he uses a quote by John W. Corrington and Miller Williams, “The landscape of the South that is most haunted is within the Southern man. And therefore, too, the ghosts have names. They have been named before, and the names are not ours, but they are good and honest names. They are Religion and History, Place, and Responsibility.” In response to this quote Berry disproves it by saying “we are supposedly ascending to the highest reaches of human experience; in reality, however, the direction is toward the obscuring chauvinisms of Southern Hospitality and Southern Fried Chicken.”

Berry establishes ethos by focusing mainly on the fact that he has lived in one place for most of his life. He does this by stating in the first sentence of his essay, “In thinking about myself as a writer whose work and whose life have been largely formed in relation to one place...” He establishes his credibility this way immediately and doesn’t need to say anything more. Wendell however establishes ethos continually throughout his paper by supplying the reader with a steady stream of knowledge and well thought out inferences using this knowledge. One example he uses effectively to explain his argument is, he infers that architects don’t often have enough insight on the climate and weather of a region. This inference is then backed up with knowledge of how expensive the air conditioning systems they use are, and he argues that small changes could be made to the house to allow for natural heating and cooling instead.

Pathos is used by both of these authors in very different ways. Berry makes fun of other writers at the beginning of his paper to try and sway the reader into thinking their views are almost laughable, but by the end he implements an almost dire tone using words like “destructiveness” and “preposterous” to scare the reader and introduce a sense of urgency. He does this to explain how our society of urban nomads may destroy humanity if we don't take action. Wendell, however, chooses a more informative route to explain his views. He shares his extensive knowledge and writing ability to invoke intrigue in the reader. He tries to make the reader curious about what facts or interesting ideas he will introduce next.

In conclusion we see that although some aspects of their arguments are the same, Berry and Mumford for the most part use very different writing styles and techniques to get their views across to the same general audience which I believe to be the world as a whole. This shows that although they use different ways of explaining their arguments, Berry and Mumford were similar because they both were skilled writers who knew how to very effectively get their point across to the same audience.

Wendall Berry Response Paper

 Zachary Woodrum

1/19/2021

                                                                    Response paper

 First  off,  I  would  just  like  to  address  that  Wendall  Berry  is  from  Kentucky.  As  am  I.  So  shout  out  to  him.  I  will  try  to  relate  the  best  i  can.

 This  piece  was  written  in  1972,  so  its  important  to  take  into consideration  the  time  period  he  is writing  in.  I  feel  like  in  a  way  wendall  has  his  own  very  strong  opinion  of  what  nationalism  is,  which  is  more  say  towards  the  fact  that  in  order  for  a  place  to  be  nationalized  one  must  consider  the  natural  conditions  of  the  climate,  the  soil,  the  culture  itself  on  what  people  born  in  the  south  are  used  to  living  in.  yet  he  also  includes  a  few  quotes  from  some  highly  admirable people  in  his  region  around  this  time.  Mainly  southern  states,  that  don't  so  much  revolve  around what  he  thinks  himself  of  nationalism.  So  he  has  an  argument  in  a  way.  or  separate  set  of  opinions  on  the  topic.

 "Southern  Writing  in  the  sixties"  by  corrington  &  miller.  Two  of  the  highly  admirable  people  i  previously  stated.  Wendall  sort  of  calls  out.  He  used  the  term  "ghost"  making  it  seem  like  people  before  them  have  left  their  names  due  to  destruction  or  some  obscure  moment.  Redefining the  term  southern  hospitality.  Wendall  believes  that  in  order  for  a  place  to  be  regionalized,  one  must  consider  the  dependency  of  the  land  itself.  Corrington  and  miller  both  believe  that  responsibility,  history,  religion  are  the  main  focus  points  to  what  regionalism  is.  More  difined  by  the  actions  of  the  people.

 Wendalls  main  audience  I  believe  is  maybe  to  the  future  era  of  people.  or  maybe  people  who  really  don't  know  a  whole  lot  about  nationalism.  Because  he  gives  different  opinions  on  what  other  quoted  people  believe  it  to  be  along  with  his  own.  He  sort  of  categorizes  them.  Being  from  the  south  i  think  it  is  important  to  think  of nationalism  the  way  Berry  does.  The  people  help  form  the  nation/region.  The  culture  as  well.

 Rigdon Hermann

Richard Simpson

WRTG 111

January 17, 2021

In Response to Regionalism

The essay, The Regional Motive, by Wendell Berry, goes into detail about how the definition and understanding of the term “regional” have changed over time, from a physical and commonly understood meaning to more of an idea or generalization of social groupings and of society itself. He mentions the manner in which people reside in the land compared to how their ancestors lived. Specifically how our society has evolved over time to create this superficial connection between themselves and the land they live on. Previous generations tied their histories and memories to the land, whereas society in recent years only develops superficial connections. When people live in an area, they develop deeper connections and ties to the land, which makes them appreciate the well-being and sustainability of the land. Whereas, people who arrive with no underlying history in the area, do not have this same understanding of its importance. “‘The land,’ ...  ‘is scarred by [history] and the grass is greener for what the land holds.’” Understanding the history of an area allows one to appreciate the idiosyncrasies and tolerate conditions that others may find unbearable. 

He touches on the idea that the importance of and the devotion to the land people live on, has subsided in the modern era. How societies would form in important geographical or cultural places, and how their memories tied them to the land. He directly compares this to modern day society, and how individuals are not as connected to the land as their ancestors once were. The urban nomadic society of today is no longer based on survival, but on decency:

And the two concerns – decency and survival – are not separate, but are intimately related… it is not the life that is fittest (by which we have meant the most violent) that survives, but rather the life that is most decent – the life that is most generous and wise in its relation to the earth. (4)

        Currently, due to economic factors, people move across the country in a nomadic fashion and do not have any historical ties to the areas they live. Therefore, they are more destructive of the land and the historical artifacts which define the land, possibly alienating the people who live there: 

Without a complex knowledge of one’s place, and without the faithfulness to one’s place on which such a knowledge depends, it is inevitable that the place will be used carelessly and eventually destroyed. Without such knowledge and faithfulness, moreover, the culture of a country will be superficial and decorative, functional only insofar as it may be a symbol of prestige, the affectation of an elite or “in” group. (3) 

As time goes by, and people spread out, the line between necessity and convenience has been blurred, and the importance of the history and cultural significance of the land we live in has been forgotten. This shows the ideological change in society to a more materialistically focused civilization. Wendell Berry focuses on the point that society as a whole, for the sake of the land and the people residing in it, should embrace a more responsible attitude towards the environment. “And he goes on to say that even a place ‘may have beauty, grandeur, convenience,’ it still cannot be comfortably inhabited by people ‘if it lacks memories.” (3) Society will continue to decline unless there is a cultural shift.

Response Paper, Regional Motive (Wendell Berry)

 Cameron Okins

Richard Simpson

WRTG 111

    In the 1972 paper The Regional Motive, author Wendell Berry remarks about the “embarrassment” that is the understanding of regionalism. He writes about how the word has become sloppily defined, explaining how many of its meanings come from “false mythology” that is rooted in the generalization of the life of a region. These accusations, although aggressive, are not baseless. Near the beginning of the piece, Wendell Berry quotes John W. Corrington and Miller Williams, calling one of their writings chauvinistic and melodramatic in its portrayal of regionalism. Starting with such an aggressive tone, many readers may be put off by Wendell Berry. However, through an understanding of his intentions and where he’s coming from, the tone of the piece shifts from aggression to almost resentment.

    Through The Regional Motive, we learn that Wendell Berry has a distaste for what he calls the “Urban Nomad”, or people who move around regularly without concern for establishing permanency with a region. He also describes that the fact that his region of Kentucky, which is “well wooded, well watered, having had originally the best of soils, and still abundantly fertile”, producing one of these nomads is “preposterous”. His hatred also extends further beyond that of these nomads, and into a general distaste for anyone who leaves their region willingly. He later states “that by memory and association men are made fit to inhabit the land” heavily implying that without already having an association with a region then one may not inhabit that region. All these ideas seem rather radical. However, understanding that Wendell Berry was born, raised, went to college, and currently lives within Kentucky, we can see why his definition of regionalism is as he describes.

    Now, before making any remarks regarding my personal opinions regarding the paper, I would like to address Wendell Berry’s wonderful ideologies regarding the environment. This idea in 1972 was not seen as exactly “popular”, and I believe that Mr. Berry openly writing about it was highly commendable. That said, his statements addressing regionalism in The Regional Motive remind me of a crotchety old man that is upset because his son wanted to go to college up North. He props up this idea of regional devotion, almost as if it will solve all the world’s environmental issues. He also goes as far as to blame the “urban nomads” as the destructive forces behind these issues. Nothing about his definition of regionalism came across as remotely realistic and seems to be based entirely on fiction. Wendell Berry lacks the understanding that others live their lives differently than him and that just because somebody doesn’t establish permanence in a region doesn’t mean they are a “destructive force, sweeping the continent”.

In conclusion, I believe that the ideologies regarding regionalism in The Regional Motive, although unique, are dated, resentful, and to quote Wendell Berry himself “impractical and unrealistic”.

weekly response-Addressing Berry's definition on regionalism

 Tyler Berg

1/16/2021

3:30 PM-5:00 PM

In Wendell Berry's essay “The Regional Motive,” written in 1972, he argues that the word “regional” is misused and misunderstood. He believes regionalism now is more geared towards appealing to the ideas of a region that are accepted and understood, not what it is actually like and experiences of the place. He uses the south as an example and says, “we are supposedly ascending to the highest reaches of human experience; in reality, however, the direction is toward the obscuring chauvinisms of Southern Hospitality and Southern Fried Chicken.” Wendell believes that regionalism should remain about a person’s personal knowledge and experience of a specific location. He uses the words “utter detachment” to better explain how he feels regarding humanity viewing regionalism differently than that.

He also uses the argument that humanity needs to be more self aware about what their way of life is doing to the planet to help explain his definition of regionalism. He believes that the world as a whole is now full of urban nomads. He is trying to reach the world as a whole with this accusation, and is aggressive in his writing about this. He is trying to make the world realize his perspective, which is that people need to focus on living sustainably in one place. He believes that all humanity will fail if this doesn’t happen and conveys this in an almost dire tone. He states, “With the urbanization of the country so nearly complete, it may seem futile to the point of madness to pursue an ethic and a way of life based upon devotion to a place and devotion to the land.” 

In conclusion, Berry believes regionalism is misunderstood because it actually applies to what a region is like in terms of place. Because of the nomadic nature of our society, we don’t take the time to develop a sense of place with the land where we live. I can really connect to Berry’s definition of regionalism because of the way I have lived my life. My family relies on subsisting off of the land for all of our meat. I go back to the same places each year to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike and much more. I believe having a personal relationship with the land around you and impacting the land as little as possible is an absolute necessity if we want our species to survive.

Welcome to our Class Blog!

Greetings Everyone!  

You have successfully located our class blog dedicated to engaging essays on the relationship between identity and environment.  

Does this photo contain a regional expression?  Why or why not?