Place and Politics: Revisiting the Role of Place-Related Cues in Political Science Research

When it comes to politics, place matters. In contemporary American and European politics, the center-periphery cleavage has resurfaced in the form of a rural-urban divide that shapes political identities, emotions, and that affects electoral outcomes. From the American heartland to regional variations in the Brexit referendum and (radical-right) appeals to national sovereignty and nativity, recent politics suggest that – even in an age of globalization – one’s attachment to places matters for politics. This insight stands in sharp contrast to the limited attention and conceptualization which ‘place’ has received in political science research. ‘Place’ is most frequently reduced to territorial and electoral compounds, such as electoral districts. This ignores insights produced by adjacent scientific disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, urban studies, post-colonial studies and of course geography (e.g., Agnew, 1987; Altman & Low, 1992; Cresswell, 2015; Feld & Keith, 1997; Jackson & Penrose, 1993; Massey, 2005). Within these disciplines, the meaning of ‘place’ has been extended to encompass socio-cultural, economic, and political ‘environments’ that acquire their form, meaning and political relevance through social interactions (much more than static territorial boundaries). These produce place-based affect, identities and, potentially, place-based resentment (e.g., Cramer, 2016; Ramkissoon, 2016). Places, stated differently, come into being through the intricate works of memory, affect, lived experiences, and habit. They are not static but entail, a form of ‘doing’, performance or co-production (Butler, 1990). To better understand people’s attachments to (various) places, and how place-based cues influence political attitudes and behavior, this contribution investigates the felt and affective dimensions of ‘place’. It draws on inter-disciplinary readings (e.g., Bernardo & Palma-Oliveira, 2016; Foley, 2022; Hauge, 2007; Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001; Knez, 2005) to carve out the relationship between place, space, and other related spatial concepts. By exploring the connections that people have with their physical surroundings, we can gain better insights in contemporary politics. Consequently, the paper has an innovative character and challenges our current understandings about political attitudes, behavior and affect. It argues – as previous research already confirmed – that place matters to people in a political context. It also makes a theoretical contribution by going beyond the current narrow perception of ‘place’ and by taking up a wider and more profound perspective on the matter.