deletions | additions       diff --git a/Embodied Walking.tex b/Embodied Walking.tex  index 12e6e6f..07ff355 100644  --- a/Embodied Walking.tex  +++ b/Embodied Walking.tex 
...
Theories about the relationship between the body and space don't neglect the material character of space or the sensual properties of the body. In other words, the material, spatial, sensual and tmeporal contingencies of any walk mean that the walkeris in experience, feels and thinks in their movements through space and time [REF Robinson 1989]. Games [REF Games 1991] argues that the walking body is moved by affect and its movement invokes memories which are involuntary.  In walking of all kinds, the body can never mechanically pass seamlessly through rural space informed by disruptive norms and practical techniques. The interruptions of stomach cramps and hunger, headaches, blisters, ankle strains, limbs that `go to sleep', muscle fatigue, mosquito bites and a host of other bodily sensations may foreground an overwhelming awareness of the body that can dominate consciousness. Moreover, the terrain and climate are apt to impose themselves upon the body, irrespective of discourses about the rural idyll and the romantic countryside. The body must perform certain tasks, which may be painful or pleasurable in their novelty, or challenging in their awkwardness. Walkers must avoid barbed wire, be wary when passing through fields, make sure they do not step in cowpats or mud or in holes, step over logs, leap across streams, negotiate stepping stones and stiles, swat swarms of flies away, avoid brambles, nettles and thistles. These actions dramatically involve bodily actions and reveal physical properties. For instance, climbing over an unstable and swaying fence, the walker may become suddenly aware of the body’s mass and weight. Environment and climate thus impose upon walking strategies and sensations. The tactile qualities of many rural paths produce a mindfulness about one’s balance as well as a practical and aesthetic awareness of textures underfoot and all around. The walking body treads across rocky ground, springy forest floor, marsh and bog, rough tracks, heathery moorland, long grass, mud, root-lined surfaces, pasture, tarmac and autumnal leafy carpets. Biting insects inhabit long grasses, rain drenches clothes, frosty air freezes body parts.  The interruptions of stomach cramps Urban environments are more  and hunger, headaches, blisters, ankle strains, limbs that `go more often designed in order  to sleep', muscle fatigue, mosquito bites be distinctive, vibrant  and a host of other bodily sensations may foreground an overwhelming awareness of beautiful, thus creating – or so  the body argument goes – memorable sensory experiences for the people who pass through them [REF Allen, 2006; Klingman, 2007; Lonsway, 2009; Thrift, 2004]. Degen and Rose [REF Degen Rose 2012] engaged with this argument, firstly, by arguing  that urban spaces similar to rural spaces are indeed experienced with feeling. Even people visiting rather ordinary town centres  can dominate consciousness. Moreover, the terrain describe a very rich range of sensory engagements with those places. These encounters are multisensory. Sight, touch, sound  and climate smell in particular  are apt to impose themselves upon the body, irrespective all part  of discourses about the rural idyll how these towns are experienced. And these experiences of place are vary considerably from one place to another. They also confirm what many others scholars have also noted: ``material culture is neither stable nor fixed, but inherently transitive, demanding connection  and completion by  the romantic countryside. The body must perform certain tasks, which may perceiver'' [REF Seremetakis, 1994]. Specific forms of built environment afford specific forms of sensory experience. However, while human sensory experience can  be painful or pleasurable in their novelty, or challenging understood as being embedded  in their awkwardness. Walkers must avoid barbed wire, be wary when passing through fields, make sure they material environments, and as provoked by specific aspects of them, urban spaces  do not step create experiences  in cowpats or mud or a straightforward manner. The case studies discussed here suggest that a more complex analysis is required, for two reasons: (1) the sensory experiencing of two towns  inholes, step over logs, leap across streams, negotiate stepping stones and stiles, swat swarms of flies away, avoid brambles, nettles and thistles. These actions dramatically involve bodily actions and reveal physical properties. For instance, climbing over an unstable and swaying fence,  the walker may become suddenly aware UK was significantly mediated by the specific walking practices that predominate in those two places. Sensory accounts  of the body’s mass and weight. Environment and climate city  thus impose upon walking strategies have to take account not only of the sensing bod, but of how the sensory body is moving through urban space. (2) A certain sort of remembering also mediates the experiencing of urban built environments. In Degen  and sensations. The tactile qualities Rose's research, regular users  of many rural paths produce a mindfulness the town centres were both highly engaged in and articulate  about one’s balance as well as the sensory qualities of the built environment; yet they were also ``over it'' to such  a practical and aesthetic awareness degree that they did not notice their surroundings. This paradox  of textures underfoot and all around. The walking body treads across rocky ground, springy forest floor, marsh and bog, rough tracks, heathery moorland, long grass, mud, root-lined surfaces, pasture, tarmac attentive sensory engagement experiences in places simultaneously understood to be at best ``nice'' can be understood, Degan  and autumnal leafy carpets. Biting insects inhabit long grasses, rain drenches clothes, frosty air freezes body parts. Rose would argue, by paying more attention to the working of particular kinds of memory.  Urban studies scholars and urban policy practitioners agree that, increasingly, the aim of design interventions into urban space is to alter the experience of that space for its human inhabitants. Urban environments are more and more often designed in order to be distinctive, vibrant and beautiful, thus creating – or so the argument goes – memorable sensory experiences for the people who pass through them (Allen, 2006; Klingman, 2007; Lonsway, 2009; Thrift, 2004). This paper has engaged with this argument, firstly, by arguing that urban spaces are indeed experienced with feeling (see also Rose et al., 2010). Even people visiting rather ordinary town centres – like those of Bedford and Milton Keynes – can describe a very rich range of sensory engagements with those places. These encounters are multisensory. Sight, touch, sound and smell in particular are all part of how these towns are experienced. And these experiences of place are vary considerably from one place to another. The smooth marble and glazing of Milton Keynes's shopping centre, for example, provokes feelings of light and smoothness; the varied surface textures of Bedford's buildings encourage people to compare the town to sandpaper. Our research thus confirms what many others scholars have also noted: “material culture is neither stable nor fixed, but inherently transitive, demanding connection and completion by the perceiver” (Seremetakis, 1994, p. 7). Specific forms of built environment afford specific forms of sensory experience. However, while human sensory experience can be understood as being embedded in material environments, and as provoked by specific aspects of them, urban spaces do not create experiences in a straightforward manner. The case studies discussed here suggest that a more complex analysis is required, for two reasons.  First, the sensory experiencing of Bedford and Milton Keynes was significantly mediated by the specific walking practices that predominate in those two places. Sensory accounts of the city thus have to take account not only of the sensing bod, but of how the sensory body is moving through urban space. Secondly, a certain sort of remembering also mediates the experiencing of urban built environments. In Bedford and Milton Keynes, regular users of the town centres were both highly engaged in and articulate about the sensory qualities of the built environment; yet they were also "over it" to such a degree that they did not notice their surroundings. This paradox of attentive sensory engagement experiences in places simultaneously understood to be at best "nice" can be understood, we would argue, by paying more attention to the  working of particular kinds of memory. Serematkis (1994) argues that one of the most important ways that 'the perceiver' creates the 'completion' of a material urban environment is by acts of memory. And, in counterposition to most of the literature on memory in urban places, the paradox of sensory experiencing we are addressing here does not involve collective cultural identity. Rather, our research participants' experiences of these two places was infused with what Serematkis calls perceptual memory: “...perceptual memory as a cultural form, is not to be found in the psychic apparatus of a monadic, pre-cultural and ahistorical seer, but is encased and embodied out there in a dispersed surround of created things, surfaces, depths and densities that give back refractions of our own sensory biographies.” (Seremetakis, 1994, p. 129) Perceptual memory was at work as our participants walked around Bedford and Milton Keynes, responding to specific created things and surfaces not only in terms of those things' and objects' material qualities, but also in relation to the participants' own, remembered, sensory biographies. To invert Keightley's (2010, p. 58) claim, remembering is not just "a performance rooted in lived contexts" but is also "an articulation of individual psychologies". Such remembering is a continual process, and produced not only explicit sensory engagements with the two towns, but also the effect of a series of questions for our participants: how was this place different in the past? How is it different from other places I've visited? How is it the same as other places I've been to? This effect mediates the sensory perception of the urban environment. Recalling how this place was different in the past means that the research participants were not engaging solely with the urban environment as it currently exists, but also in relation to how it looked, smelt, and sounded in the past. Noting how Bedford and Milton Keynes are different from other places research participants could remember visiting invokes a series of comparisons and judgements that again  mediates the immediate experiencing of those two towns. And asserting that Bedford and Milton Keynes are just the same as other town centres and shopping centres establishes them as 'types' rather than unique urban environments, once again allowing their immediate sensory impact to be reflected upon and, in this case, dulled. As Eizenberg (2010) argues, this ongoing remembering of other places and of previous visits to the same place both assimilates a person into the