It is very important to get acquainted with the works
of scientists working in a field close to yours. In this case we are talking
about the work of "UNIFYING GEOGRAPHY. Common heritage, shared
future". My direction is General Geography. Therefore, it makes sense to compare
these variants of vision.
UNIFYING GEOGRAPHY. Common heritage, shared future. Edited
by John A. Matthews and David T. Herbert. First published 2004 by Routledge. – link.
The citation. In the preamble, the authors state the
following: It is argued that the differences in content and approach between
physical and human geography, and within its subdisciplines, are often
overemphasized. The result is that Geography is often seen as a diverse and
dynamic subject, but also as a disorganized and fragmented one, without a focus.
My position. This cannot disagree. Indeed, over the decades, different
directions have emerged, which their supporters considered to be almost
independent. First of all, we are talking about the so-called physical
geography and economic geography, then - socio-economic geography (in the West
- human geography), which required serious discussion. But representatives of
these directions were reluctant to debate, and the points of view that
questioned such a division of geography were simply ignored. For many years, I
have shown that geography cannot be divided into such directions and is a holistic
discipline, the structure of which must reflect the presence of different
levels of organization of the geographical environment - abiotic, biotized and
anthropized. They should be matched by geomorphology, biogeography and
anthropogeography (human geography). Unfortunately, this was not supported by
geographers. This is different from the position of the authors of the book who
write that «Unifying Geography focuses on the
plural and competing versions of unity that characterize the discipline, give
it cohesion and differentiate it from related fields of knowledge».