The Changing Nature of Geography (RLE Social & Cultural Geography)

Roger Minshull

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317906346
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Ciencias físicas
• Subtopic: Geografía

This book is an introduction to the nature of geography. There are detailed sections on content, methods and purposes and an attempt is made to distinguish progress from those changes which are merely fashion and those which result in genuine progress. One of these, resulting partly from the adoption of quantitative techniques, is the improvement in the accuracy and the type of explanation which the geographer is now able to give. The new techniques have also helped in the bringing about of profound changes in geographical laws, the use of models and even the relevance of determinism.

1

INTRODUCTION

Many geographers believe that the present rapid change in geography, the quantitative revolution, is resulting in genuine progress. Changes in the past may have been less revolutionary, but it is certainly very difficult to say that progress was made each time. T. W. Freeman goes as far as saying that trends in geography have been like swings of the pendulum and that most of the things we hail as new have been tried or suggested in the past.¹

There have been changes in content, approach and techniques. Changes in technique are easily explained as the result of a desire to use the best tools available at any one time, and must occur as technology improves. But changes in content, such as the inclusion or exclusion of human geography, or in approach, such as the swing from study of landscapes to the study of spatial relationships, are much more disturbing. If all three elements of content, method and technique are in constant change, then how can we pretend that a discipline called geography exists?

Recently, in Frontiers of Geographical Teaching, Wrigley² has suggested that an overall definition of geography is not necessary, partly because it leads to rigidity and stultifies growth. Wrigley may be the spokesman for many other geographers who think this point so obvious that there is no need to write it down. However, the majority of articles on the nature of geography are striving to emphasise guides which will keep geographers on the correct course during this constant change. The main problem is to define the nature of geography in such a way that the definition is neither too narrow so that it applies only to a few specialisms, nor so wide that in practice it is useless.

Superior figures refer to notes at the end of the chapters.

Another problem is the need to formulate a definition which is valuable to the layman, the professional geographer, and to all the students in between. For the interested layman, any short, neat definition here would then need a book of qualification and explanation. Conversely, students can have been studying geography successfully for several years without necessarily comprehending the whole of geography, or being able to give a concise definition. Added to this, we have the increasingly difficult situation of a growing number of specialist professional geographers each defining the subject largely in terms of his own interests.

Any specialist, or any author, must try to avoid defining geography in terms just of what he likes to do, or what he thinks it is, without careful, objective thought. But it must be stated here that bias of this kind can creep in. Avoiding this approach then, basically there are two ways in which to attempt to define geography. The first is to study what geographers have done in the past.³ There are several dangers in this approach, however. One possibility is that past geographers have been selective in their work and have largely ignored certain topics, say, social phenomena. But the main error we can fall into here is that in trying to define ‘geography’ we take the word ‘geographer’ for granted and thus beg the question all together. Logically, it is impossible to call any worker, past or present, a geographer, until we can say what geography is, and then decide whether he has been doing it or not.

The second approach is to ignore all the work which has been done, for the moment, and to work out in principle what geography ought to be.⁴ One might expect this approach to give a more complete definition, in that thinking out what ought to be studied may indicate certain areas ignored until now. Several people have tried to proceed in this way, and some details will be given later, but there are as many difficulties with this deductive method as with the inductive method. One can start with the word geography; or with the world as an object of study; or with the concept of studying phenomena in space, and so on; with the possibility of such different starting points leading to increasingly divergent conclusions.

The possibility of some working definition, which may be improved as more ‘geographic’ work is available for inductive reasoning, or an agreed starting point is established for deduction, lies in approaching the problem from both directions, with the hope of finding some common elements for our guidance. The task is most involved, for just as three geographic texts on, say, landforms, economic activities, and the regions of a continent differ so widely, so three papers on the nature of geography in recent editions of the journals seem to be so different that contradictions are inevitable when all the ideas are brought together. For example, F. Lukermann⁵ considers that neither content nor method are important, and that geography is defined by the questions it asks. Wrigley,⁶ in contrast, writes of ‘the welter of observational material with which geographers commonly deal’.

Wrigley’s article is very useful in showing how change can be dangerous and misleading. The ‘welter of material’, or the subject-matter of geography, is constantly changing, especially the subject-matter of economic and social geography as farming, industry, transport, towns and cities change. Now the geographer who defines his work by this subject-matter, the content, is in danger of changing the whole approach and purpose of his work as the purposes and problems of the people he is studying change. This confusion is made worse by the use of the word geography to mean not only the discipline, but the objects of study as well. This can be seen most clearly in Problems and Trends in American Geography, edited by S. B. Cohen.⁷ The title suggests that the book is about problems and trends within the academic discipline. In fact the majority of the chapters deal with such problems and trends as rural depopulation, urban growth, conservation and so on; that is, with the problems and trends within the subject-matter itself. Taken to the extreme, definition of geography by the subject-matter alone could lead to complete reverses in the purposes of study as trends in the field are reversed.

In the concluding article in the same book, Haggett⁸ echoes Wrigley in emphasising that geography should not lose sight of its basic purpose by being misled by short-term, superficial changes, whether these are trends to planning, changes in teaching or changes in what man is doing on the earth’s surface. J. D. Chapman⁹ suggests a useful analogy here. He likens geographers to people setting out in sailing ships. Some of them, taking advantage of every wind, can travel very quickly indeed, but as the winds change they zigzag all over the ocean, and don’t get anywhere in particular. This is speed and change, but it isn’t progress. Others have a destination, and this means sailing against a strong wind at times. Their average speed may be very slow, but they have a destination, they have a purpose, and in getting toward it they are making progress.

A common complaint about the work of sixth-formers and college students is that they do not treat their subject-matter ‘geographically’. This is partly the fault of their teachers and tutors, but partly the result of the students being unfamiliar with the philosophy of the subject. At different levels the school pupil faced with ‘give a geographic account of…’,¹⁰ the student writing a special study, and the graduate doing research, all have the same problem of using facts and information as geographers, in contrast, say, to historians or natural scientists.

Thus we begin to see that an understanding of the nature of geography is needed for several reasons. Firstly, to keep pupils, students and even research workers on the right track if they want to be geographers. It is very easy indeed for what was intended to be geography to end up as quite sound history or an accurate account of economic processes. Haggett¹¹ urges that we should avoid so-called geography, which in fact is ‘genuine historical research’.

Secondly, to provide the basic framework into which all our acquired knowledge about the external world can be fitted. At least since the time of Kant it has been explicit both that our direct knowledge of the world is limited, so that we need information from others, and that our information comes in a haphazard fashion, not necessarily in a logically satisfying order. Therefore some logical framework is necessary early in life so that the pieces of the jigsaw can be put together properly. There is the practical difficulty of giving this philosophical framework to young children. This makes a well-planned curriculum vital, but emphasises that the student should be introduced to the philosophy of his particular specialism as soon as possible, even though this necessitates elaboration later on.

A third reason is to help teachers, in their turn, to understand what they are teaching, to understand the value of geography, and its relevance both to education and to everyday life. During this particular period of change, which is accompanied by a rapid increase in the number of professional geographers, specialist teachers, and diverse branches of the subject, there is a need to emphasise the common subject-matter, methods, and, above all, objectives of geographers. Finally, Haggett would add two points.¹² First the need to attract those who will eventually become research students. Second, to have such a clear definition that vaguely geographic work can not be made an ad hoc vehicle for such things as international goodwill, regional planning, bridging the two cultures gap and above all ‘short-term educational profit in school’.

Stating the obvious may help to clarify a point here, and indicate whether to start with a definition of geography or an examination of geographers. People who call themselves geographers may not necessarily be doing what is a priori defined as geography. For example, most methodologists insist that geography must include a study of distributions and spatial relationships, yet until very recently so-called physical geographers studied such things as the development of landforms, and today would more strictly and properly be called geomorphologists. Therefore it must be stressed that an individual may start off as a geographer, but as his interests change, and the type of work he produces changes, this does not necessarily mean that geography has changed. More likely it means that the individual has become an historian, a climatologist, an economist, a demographer or a mathematician.

From this, it is suggested that there can be three distinct motives for any type of study. First, there is the interest in the content of study. Ignoring the truism, for the moment, that very rarely is the content unique to one discipline, we know that some students approach history through their interest in people and past events; some approach natural sciences through interest in machines and plants; others approach geography through interest in other parts of the world.

Second, there is the delight in methods and techniques applied more in one subject than others. These may be the scientific method and experimental techniques most obvious in physics and chemistry, the historical method, mathematical techniques, or the use of maps and photographs in geography.

Third, there is the desire to work toward some greater knowledge, some genuine understanding of the world. The first two approaches can, of course, lead to this third motive, and one sincerely hopes that they do. But it is quite clear that many people are satisfied simply by acquiring factual knowledge from whatever they study, and certainly one sees many people so delighted with new techniques, machines and equipment that they forget entirely that methods and techniques are simply means to the end of collecting information, sorting it out, and trying to understand the world a little more in the process. W. M. Davis,¹³ many years ago, was concerned about the people who took more interest in methods of mapping, rather than in the things mapped. We have a new variation on this theme with those whose interest lies in how to compute quantitative data rather than in what the processed data reveal. The person who stops when the calculation is complete is a statistician; the person who uses the calculation to help in his understanding of the earth’s surface is on the way to becoming a geographer.

As people have approached geography, and have become geographers, through interest in the three elements of content, methods and purpose, these will be examined separately in this book. Content and methods of what is accepted as geography have changed and are still changing. While trying not to prejudice succeeding chapters, it is the author’s contention that although content can change within limits, and methods will change, we must hope to find or define an underlying purpose common to all geographers. The discipline must be defined by something which is both unique to geography, and constant in time.

1. Freeman, T. W., A Hundred Years of Geography, Duckworth, 1961, p. 16

2. Wrigley, E. A., in Chorley, R. J., and Haggett, P., Frontiers in Geographical Teaching, Methuen, 1967, p. 15

3. Hartshorne, R., ‘The Nature of Geography’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1939

4. Bunge, W., Theoretical Geography, Lund, 1966

5. Lukermann, F., ‘Geography as a formal intellectual discipline, and the way in which it contributes to human knowledge’, The Canadian Geographer, vol. VIII, no. 4, 1964, p. 167

6. Wrigley, op. cit., p. 3

7. Cohen, S. B., Problems and Trends in American Geography, Basic Books, 1967

8. Haggett, P., in Chorley and Haggett, op. cit., p. 375

9. Chapman, J. D., ‘The Status of Geography’. The Canadian Geographer, vol. X, no. 3, 1966, p. 133

10. CSE geography papers, East Midlands Board, 1969

11. Haggett, op. cit., p. 375

12. Haggett, op. cit., p. 375

13. Davis, W. M., Geographical Essays, Dover and Constable. 1954

¹Superior figures refer...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Some consideration of content
• 3 Is certain subject-matter unique to geography?
• 4 The geographical approach
• 5 Practical approaches
• 6 Changing techniques
• 7 Connection, samples and models
• 8 Functions and purposes of geography
• 9 Determinism
• 10 Laws, descriptions and explanations in geography
• 11 Recent changes in geography
• 12 One geography or many?
• Bibliography
• Index