Moral Regulation Shaping Space and Landscape In the human society, we are all forced to conform in a behaviour that fits the day-to-day living of a space. Around the world people are accustomed to different qualities of life and use their space in different type of ways. A social hierarchy that found their way to regulate a society morally without interfering the law that is written by the government usually conducts this way of living. Historical geographers find “moral regulation” as a more complex concept where it connects with branches from cultures, landscape, and importantly space. Moral regulations are not written down and set in stone but more as behaviour of continuity to stay relevant in the space that we are in. There are moral regulations that would be created but can never solve but that does not equip to the pros it comes with these moral regulations. The people that are colonizing the space are the ones that put forth the moral regulations. This help shapes space as they bring on characteristics and attributes to create a society that is well and suitably functional. The importance of moral regulation stems from the scopes of government institutions against “government to self” (Hunt, 1). Not everything that comes to mind, which contributes to the makeup of a space, can be written down. This is where the colonizers who create these moral regulations gain power by keeping together a social control. These regulations are more in the favour of the colonizers as it is their decision to put forth moral rules which is in their best interest. It creates an identity and image for a space where there are distinctive differences which makes that society known for their differences. An example of this would be a society that is dominated by a religious group in contrast to another society not dominated by any religious groups. The circumstances of control would be around religious concepts and not outside what they feel is “normal”. Everyone always wants to have the feeling of power and dominance. For the colonizers, it is their chance when they have it in their hands, to set precedence on how there society will emerge. As it is more of a social action, it helps create cultural transformations that may create trends for other societies to build on a foundation that is laid out. With government laws always infringing on how humans want to behave, it only allows the colonizers to set moral regulations to a certain extent. As long as there is power within a social group, there will always be the followers of the regulations that is set and is what creates a personality/image of a space. There are misconceptions about moral regulations on how it only controls the society to conduct how life should be, but it is more as a specific aim to change an identity in a positive way; through education, propaganda and enlightenment (Ruonavaara, 289). This creates a culture of positivity through its landscape that entails the people to live life “mora ...

1. Moral Regulation Shaping Space and Landscape
In the human society, we are all forced to conform in a
behaviour that fits the day-to-day living of a space. Around the
world people are accustomed to different qualities of life and
use their space in different type of ways. A social hierarchy that
found their way to regulate a society morally without interfering
the law that is written by the government usually conducts this
way of living. Historical geographers find “moral regulation” as
a more complex concept where it connects with branches from
cultures, landscape, and importantly space. Moral regulations
are not written down and set in stone but more as behaviour of
continuity to stay relevant in the space that we are in. There are
moral regulations that would be created but can never solve but
that does not equip to the pros it comes with these moral
regulations. The people that are colonizing the space are the
ones that put forth the moral regulations. This help shapes space
as they bring on characteristics and attributes to create a society
that is well and suitably functional.
The importance of moral regulation stems from the scopes of
government institutions against “government to self” (Hunt, 1).
Not everything that comes to mind, which contributes to the
makeup of a space, can be written down. This is where the
colonizers who create these moral regulations gain power by
keeping together a social control. These regulations are more in
the favour of the colonizers as it is their decision to put forth
moral rules which is in their best interest. It creates an identity
and image for a space where there are distinctive differences
which makes that society known for their differences. An
example of this would be a society that is dominated by a
religious group in contrast to another society not dominated by
any religious groups. The circumstances of control would be
around religious concepts and not outside what they feel is
“normal”. Everyone always wants to have the feeling of power

2. and dominance. For the colonizers, it is their chance when they
have it in their hands, to set precedence on how there society
will emerge. As it is more of a social action, it helps create
cultural transformations that may create trends for other
societies to build on a foundation that is laid out. With
government laws always infringing on how humans want to
behave, it only allows the colonizers to set moral regulations to
a certain extent. As long as there is power within a social group,
there will always be the followers of the regulations that is set
and is what creates a personality/image of a space.
There are misconceptions about moral regulations on how it
only controls the society to conduct how life should be, but it is
more as a specific aim to change an identity in a positive way;
through education, propaganda and enlightenment (Ruonavaara,
289). This creates a culture of positivity through its landscape
that entails the people to live life “morally” without refusing
what is written down in government laws. Having moral
regulations creates a foundation for social hierarchies as it can
be intertwined with culture and economic scales. As being the
regulator, they do not have to be economically stabled to set
regulations for others to follow. Instead, it can be vice versa as
being culturally/morally rich can still meet goals of having
social control. It does not take only the financially wealthy
people to gain power to set moral regulations but socially
inclined people are just as equal on setting moral regulations as
it is a way of shaping space differently.
Having regulations set as a moral interest from colonizers are
big unwritten laws that have shaped many institutions and
societies in this present day. Moral regulations is also
connected with etiquette which is a way of living that does not
usually need to be explained but more known from oneself.
(Example: chewing food and not leaving your mouth open).
Throughout time, Toronto has went through many moral
regulation changes as there were many different ethnic groups

3. which ways of living had to be altered to cater to everyone.
Many moral regulations were set as time went on for many
various things. Boys were mandatory of swimming in pools
naked until after the 1950s when regulations have changed and
clothing must be worn to swim. Another large regulation that
shaped one of Toronto’s bigger institutions was the Toronto
Public Library. Opened to the public for them to have access to
information from books, magazines, poetry, etc. But there were
many rules that had to be modified overtime where there were
social differences from gender, ethnicity and financial factors
that negated a lot of people. The TPL (Toronto Public Library)
tended to favour males in magazines and newspapers, also take
over a lot of the rooms that were situated in the libraries where
it did not give women a lot of opportunities to get access to the
library. Changes had to be made that was “morally” correct and
allow the space to be used equally which the landscape is for
everyone. There were moral deficiencies as lack of equality was
present in the times where society was still in the shaping
process. It has been a moral revolution which shaped many
western societies and still today there are regulations that
cannot be fixed which was put in place from historical times.
Moral Regulations have a really big impact on shaping a
landscape and space, as it is a starter for regulators to make a
society conform to their normal traditions. Geographers were
able to connect the concepts of why moral regulations have
played big roles on cultures of societies and why people
function the way they do in certain societies. ‘Moral codes
geographically emerge relative to: the conditions and
temptations of the communities or anonymities of their cities;
the obligations and geographical imaginaries of their empires’
(Brown and Legg, 135). With the ‘moral project’ being a system
that constitutes the regulators to commit to a long-term ideal of
living towards the ones being regulated (Ruonavaara, 289).
Usually the ones that are regulated do not have the complete
understanding why certain moral regulations are put in place
because usually they are already conformed to its regulation,

4. which they are not aware of or either feel its suitable and that is
why moral regulations have really help create identities for
spaces that need a meaning for their landscape.
We as a society are the many people that conformed to what this
Western society has offered and are somewhat called
“underdogs” which the only way for us to change anything is
through the strength of power. As the western society may be
different for many people around the world, it can be said vice
versa and moral regulations are what really influences the
images of how landscapes are viewed as and were major steps in
shaping space socially. Toronto is a great example of how moral
regulations have shaped this city and continues to build on to
shape this space in the best possible way.
Work Cited
Stephen Legg, Michael Brown (2013) "Moral regulation:
historical geography and scale" Journal of Historical
Geography October 2013, Volume42 (Issue12)
Hunt, Alan. “Governing Morals, A Social History of Moral
Regulation”. Cambridge University. Print. 1999.
Ruonavaara, Hannu. “Moral Regulation: A Reformulation*.
University of Turku. Print.
Tyler Stewart /
AP GEOG 2060 3.0
June 15, 2014.
Assignment #4 – Space and Moral Regulation
(1) Space and Moral Regulation: Discuss what historical
geographers mean by the term "moral regulation" and discuss
the usefulness of connecting it to space.

5. The beginning… Moral regulation is a somewhat advanced
concept, which I attempted to explain with various Toronto
examples. Essentially moral regulation is the culture, which a
powerful social group brings to a place to shape that space to
suit its own interests.
Moral regulation.... attempts to impose order, and provoke
disorder.
Every day we as humans are forced to confine to the rules given
to us and set by society. We knowingly must act and behave
“properly” according to the State. Whether it is regulation by
natural or by government, we are forced to make best of what
we are given and to confine to the expected “order” of society
and what it deems right or wrong. Moral regulation is complex
and advanced concept, and doesn’t solely have one entire
meaning. It connects aspects of culture, landscape, region, and
space, being shaped by powerful social, political, and/or
economical interests. Some moral regulations do change and
none are in no way permanent, but moral regulation’s aim is to
promote and preserve certain behaviors, so that they remain
apparent in that specific place, while trying to eliminate the
“unwanted” behaviors. This helps the shaping of space, as
certain characteristics and behaviors are associated with a
community, and its residents.
Moral regulation is not to be confused with social control, but
instead is a type of social control, moreover, moral regulation is
essentially the culture that a powerful social group brings to a
place to shape that space to suit their own specific interests.
There are many miscon
NOT PART OF MY ESSAY
Against Valverde, Hunt insists that moral regulation should not
be thought through the lens of class, but in terms of

6. moralisation rather than morality, targeting conduct and subjec-
tivity rather than thought and principles alone. 137 brown legg
For the HCW, however, differences in behaviour were no more
than coincidentally connected to differences in wealth. The real
determinant of behaviour, the group argued, was not household
wealth but the unrelated matter of ‘environment.’….. As one
member put it:
Children are not born equal. One is born with a silver spoon in
its mouth and another is note, but that is but an item, for silver
spoons amount to but very little in the race of life.What does
count - overwhelmingly - is ENVIRONMENT.
This definition implies that moral regulation is a legitimating
activity; its function is to make certain social arrangements
seem justified and natural (see also Osborne 1994:289). This is
what ideologies are usually supposed to do (see, e.g.,
Ruonavaara 1996b); indeed, Corrigan locates moral regulation
in the “terrain of cultural production and ideological relations”
(1990:132). Thus, from the perspective of social action, moral
regulation can be seen as the action that makes ideologies
effective: education, persuasion, indoctrination, and so forth.
Dean has looked at the matter from a more system-centered
perspective. He says that, according to the “Corrigan and Sayer
thesis,” moral regulation is the mechanism through which the
process of State formation affects the process of cultural
transformation (1994a:149; 1994b:149). Pg 280 … pg. 290
Thus, moral regulation seems to concern the aspect of social life
to which, according to Purvis and Hunt, both the concept of
“ideology” and that of “discourse” refer; “the idea that human
individuals participate in forms of understanding,
comprehension or conscious- ness of the relations and activities
in which they are involved” (1993:474). In the defini- tion the
reference to ontological and epistemological premises points
clearly to this aspect: moral regulation is about affecting

7. people’s beliefs about social relations and institutions.
But there is also another, I would say, Foucauldian element in
how Corrigan and Sayer see moral regulation that can be found,
for example, in their characterization of how the State takes part
in moral regulation. They say that States state; they make
statements that “define, in great detail, acceptable forms and
images of social identity: they regulate, in empirically
specifiable ways, much—very much, by the twentieth century—
of social life” (Corrigan and Sayer 1985:3). Here the emphasis
is on molding the self-image of people and the moral evaluation
of social practices. The State is seen as imposing on people
certain kinds of social identities and “proper forms of
expression” (see, e.g., Corrigan 1990:109) and excluding others:
people are made to see themselves as males or females, adults
or children, heterosexuals or homosexuals, and so on.
Moral regulation is a special kind of social control. Its target is
primarily how people see themselves and their ways of life, and
its method is persuasion rather than coercion. I have also
emphasized moral regulation as action taking place in a social
relation between the regulator and the regulated.
What I have specifically attempted is to distinguish moral
regulation from social control per se. Moral regulation is a
special kind of social control. Its target is primarily how people
see themselves and their ways of life, and its method is
persuasion rather than coercion. I have also emphasized moral
regulation as action taking place in a social relation between the
regulator and the regulated. Page 290