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».
And then: «Space, place, environment and maps are
identified as the essential core components of Geography derived from its
common heritage».
My position. I can't agree with what geography space, place and maps «are identified as the essential core
components of Geography». When it comes about
the environment (geo-environment), it already includes space and places, and
the maps are nothing to do with it because it is a way of displaying data that
is used not only by geographers but also by agents of many scientific fields.
FOREWORD
I cannot
disagree that the authors write in the foreword. Unfortunately, Sir Halford
Mackinder's work is unknown to us, and what he offered back in 1887 is very
important. Like the authors
of this book, I have repeatedly raised the question of the likelihood of
geography losing its independence as a scientific discipline. At the same time,
unlike the authors, I think that there must be one aspect that connects all
branches of geography to a heap, and that is the organization of the geographical environment that is the core of
Geography. This is that serves as the object of study, ensuring its integrity and
requires new notions. Such notions were introduced: geoholon, geoorg,
geoholarchy: they reflect the integrity of those entities that geography must
explore. This corresponds to what we have in other scientific disciplines:
biology studies the forms of biological organization, sociology - social,
chemistry - chemical and so on. We can also highlight geographic sections on
different scales - micro-level, meso-level, macro-level, etc. Regarding the
level of development of geography in Ukraine, it is rating in comparison with
other scientific directions, there is nothing to talk about - they are
extremely low. I totally agree that «most emphatically, the book makes the
case for Geography and geographers to aim for greater unity, by building on our
common heritage. We can only benefit from that. Alternative scenarios, it is
argued, will lead Geography towards an unsustainable future in an increasingly
interdisciplinary world»
Part I
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1
GEOGRAPHY
Roots and continuities
David T. Herbert and John A. Matthews
The citation. «Human
and physical geography have diverged because they deal with fundamentally
different subject matter (Johnston, 1986) and find their inspirations from
different bodies of knowledge» (p. 14).
My position. It really was and is considered today. But this is precisely the
mistake: after the section of geography disappeared the understanding that
everything was happening and is happening in a single environment, which
gradually evolved and transformed under the influence of biota and anthropota
(this term was introduced by analogy with the term "biota").
The citation. «There
are trends that would subsume Geography under larger collectives such as
environmental sciences on the one hand and social sciences on the other. These
moves formalize the divisions between human and physical geography» (p. 15).
My position. Geography is not subdivided into areas such as environmental sciences
and social sciences, because human beings, society as a whole are part of the
geographical environment - its existing entities. Geography is not subdivided into
areas such as environmental sciences and social sciences, because human beings,
society as a whole are part of the geographical environment - its existing
entities. To separate a person, society from a geographical environment means
to take them beyond its boundaries, which is what destroys the integrity of
geography. Thus, the differentiation of geography, which originated at the turn
of the 19th and 20th centuries, was clearly artificial and had no serious
grounds. The main root of the existence of geography as a holistic discipline
is the integrity of the geographical environment in which the abiota, biota and
anthropota interact with each other, forming the entities of different scales nested
in one another. In such a consideration, the notion of "place" but of
the concept of "entity" having a geographical level of complexity is
the leading one.
Part II
GEOGRAPHICAL
METHODOLOGIES
INTRODUCTION
John A. Matthews and David T. Herbert
I would like to
draw the attention of geographers to the position of the authors mentioned in
this paragraph: «Maps and cartography are probably
the most evocative of what Geography is about. This is expressed rather well in
the jingle of Edmund Clerihew Bently: ‘The art of Biography is different from
Geography. Geography is about maps, but Biography is about chaps’ (The Concise
Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 1964: 22). However, as Haggett (1990: 8)
reminds us, maps, mapping and spatial structures are necessary to Geography but
not sufficient to describe its methods or objectives. Geographers have evolved
their own ways of viewing the world, which can be summarized as three
methodological ‘traditions’:
•
the cartographic tradition;
•
the fieldwork tradition;
•
the holistic tradition» (p. 21).
My position. In the past, maps and mapping methods were indeed perceived as
defining the essence of geographical research, but over time it became clear
that this was not the case, although we know of many examples where maps were
called geographical. And Hagett's (1990: 8)[1]
statement demonstrates this. The fact is that cartography is an independent
discipline, and its methods are used in a wide range of disciplines. But it
should be noted that geographic maps do not exist today, because such maps
should reflect entities that have a geographical organization, geographical
level of complexity. Today, this question is one of the keys: the task of
geography is to study the forms and levels of organization of the geographical
environment as a whole and its parts, which means that the leading aspect is
not spatial but organizational. Such approaches are currently under
development. I completely agree with the authors' statement that «third, the ‘holistic tradition’ captures
the attempts of geographers to understand the totality of the Earth’s surface.
These traditions have evolved considerably through time and provide the bases
of the new spatial methodologies» (p. 22), and: «as a unifying force within the
discipline of Geography, maps both represent spatial variation in Earth-surface
phenomena and serve as interpretive procedures» (p. 22). I also want to point out that the common GIS
abbreviation is not correct because there can be no geographical information,
we can only speak about the data used in geography. Accordingly, we are talking
about "Space Data Systems" - SSD.
As far as field
research is concerned, I fully agree with the authors: geography will always
rely on such data sources. Unfortunately, today there are many examples where
"researchers" use data from the Internet, maps and directories, and
write their "dissertations" without even visiting the relevant
territories.
The third
methodological tradition is the embodiment of holistic views. The authors
write: «There are many
dimensions to the comprehension of the Earth’s surface as a whole, rather than
in terms of its many parts. These include consideration of: (1) the Earth’s
surface in its totality with all relevant factors (be they biophysical or
human); (2) the range of scales from local to global, which are manifest in
both patterns and processes over the Earth’s surface; (3) the multidimensional
nature of space and time, including the interaction of spatial variation and
temporal change; (4) the interdependence of people and environment; and (5)
inclusive objects of study such as landscapes, places and regions», accompanying his point of view with a drawing.
Figure II.1
Dimensions of the holistic tradition in Geography.
Consider the
scheme.
. Covers the range of scales from local to global. This is a very important point that is true. But I
note that poly-scale is not only a geographical feature, it is also known in
other cases, such as biology, sociology, economics, etc.
. Focuses on the interdependence
of people and environment. This seems a
bit strange because the authors have for some reason ruled out the
interdependence between abiota and biota. Even more important is the fact that
humans, human society are components of the geographical environment, so it is
not entirely correct to focus on the interdependence between humans and the
environment. The biosphere is
embedded in the abiotic sphere, and
the anthroposphere - in the
biosphere, together they form a unity and mark the macro-stages of its
formation.
. Involves a multidimensional approach to space and time. I can't agree with that. First, space and time do
not exist by themselves, they are abstractions produced during the formation of
civilization, and are used in the scientific field as dimensions that
facilitate reflection, especially dynamics. Secondly, if there is already a
range of scales from local to global, then this already includes a
multidimensional approach to space and time.
. Investigates inclusive objects of study: landscapes / places / regions. Here, it all depends on how to determine the
"landscape", "place" and "region", which
relationship to establish between these concepts. I'll start with the
landscape. "Landscape" is not a territorial unit, it is an image of a
certain terrain, which is formed in our mind, so "landscape" can not
be put in line with "place" and "region". "Place"
is not space (often the earth's surface), it is a site that is occupied by
something, and without that "something" can not be said about the
place. "Region" - Region (English region, German. Gebiet n, Region f;
from Latin. Regio - kingdom, kingdom) - ancient land, land, principality, etc.,
today - a large territorial unit (Wikipedia: https: // uk.wikipedia.org / wiki /% D0% A0% D0% B5% D0% B3% D1% 96% D0%
BE% D0% BD). This means that the region also has its place.
. Studies the Earth's surface in its totality. I do not use the term "earth's surface"
because it is not straightforward. We examine the day (visible) surface like a
board on which processes form their text-mappings in the form of a certain
structure. This is what is important. The integral image of such a surface is
the landscape. In most cases, geographical research begins with the structure
of this surface.
NEW
SPATIAL METHODOLOGIES
In this section,
the authors look at straightforward approaches in geography: Spatial statistics
(geostatistics); Earth observation (remote sensing); Geographic information
systems (GIS).
. Spatial statistics (geostatistics). The name "Spatial statistics" is correct, but
"geostatistics" is not, because these methods are applied not only in
geography, but wherever there is a need for statistical processing of data
distributed in space.
. Earth observation (remote sensing). This approach is used in many different spheres of society, including
geography.
. Geographic information systems (GIS). I mentioned above that GIS abbreviation is not correct, it is better
to write “"Space Data Systems" – “SSD”.
2
EXPLORATION,
DISCOVERY AND THE CARTOGRAPHIC TRADITION
Peter Vincent and Ian Whyte
The authors note
the following: «In
this chapter we argue that the cartographic expression of geographical
information is a tradition that is far from moribund, in spite of the fact that
cartography as such has almost completely disappeared from the undergraduate
curriculum. In our view cartography, in all its many guises, plays, and should
play, a pivotal role in modern geographical discourse» (p. 33).
My position. The authors do not distinguish between "information" and
"data", considering that data is information. This is not correct.
Information is the formation or change of behaviour and structure as a result of
receiving signals, messages, and condition data. This is a significant point. Again:
there is no geographical information (as well as biological, sociological,
chemical, etc.), there are signals, messages, data used by geographers,
biologists, sociologists, chemists, etc. I agree that historically cartography
has been closely linked to geography, but that does not mean that it is «the very lifeblood of modern Geography» (p. 34). Geography is not a science of places; it is
a science of the forms of organization of entities that have their place.
EXPLORATION, MAPS AND GEOGRAPHY
IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
………………………………………………………….
MAPS, POWER AND POLITICS
According to the
authors, «Maps
acted as expressions of human power over the physical environment; to record it
accurately was to begin to control it» (p. 37). In this approach, a person is brought out of
the formation of which he is. This is a false vision.
PHYSICAL
GEOGRAPHY
My position. I want to express my point of view on the physical geography that has
already been published. Physical geography is a view of the geographical
environment in terms of physics. It doesn't matter what level of organization
you are talking about. If there is an opportunity to provide a physical picture
of these entities, it will be a physical and geographical picture.
The citation. «Plant
and animal distribution maps are an important tool in biogeography and have
been so for more than a century (Vincent, 1990). Understanding
a species’ range and its determinants
can only really be understood by a visual examination of the recorded spatial
data» (p. 39).
My position. I do not question the importance of maps as a way of presenting data,
but I reiterate that they are ancillary. I cannot agree that the distribution
in the space of animals and plants is related to biogeography. This is an
outdated view of this discipline. Biogeography is a large section of geography,
and its field of study is not the distribution of species (estimated at around
10 million), but the forms of organization of biotized geographic formations of
various scales up to and including the biosphere.
MAPS AND SOCIETY
……………………………………….
MAPS, ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
AND HAZARDS
…………………………………..
3
FIELDWORK AND UNITY IN GEOGRAPHY
David R. Stoddart and William M. Adams
THE ROAD NOT TAKEN
I am very
impressed by Felix Driver's point of view: «In
a recent editorial in the Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
Felix Driver (2000) notes how seldom geographers have reflected on the place of
fieldwork in the geographical imagination. We would agree wholeheartedly. For
both of us, the field is central to the way we have experienced Geography, both
as the discipline within which we have lived and worked since our first degree,
and as a context within which to begin to think about the way the world works.
As Driver points out, the field is a subject in itself worthy of historical
enquiry. Geographical knowledge needs to be understood as something that is
constituted through a range of embodied practices (such as travelling, seeing
and recording). ‘The field’ is not a self-evident place, somewhere ‘out there’ to be
‘discovered’ in an unproblematic sense, it is produced in the ideas and the
recorded or remembered movements of geographical actors, created through their
discourse and shared through the networks of academic (and amateur) exchange» (p. 46). I think that students of geography departments should
begin their studies by reading these lines.
FIELD
EXPERIENCE
I am very
impressed by the following: «Geography seemed to be
what emerged when you tried to explain what was there and how things worked …»
(p. 48), onwards: «Being
in places, and being there with people, has both punctuated our lived
experiences (years are classified in our minds by the work done and the places
visited) and provided the engine for geographical writing. It would be
impossible (should anyone wish to engage in such a thankless task) to explain
either what we have done research on, or the ideas and issues we have chosen to
write about, without knowing how they have emerged from the desire to be in
places, or the desire to explain what we thought was going on there to others
on our return. Without the field there would have been, for both of us, no
Geography to write home about» (p. 48).
GEOGRAPHY, EXPLORATION
AND THE FIELD
……………………………..
GEOGRAPHY AFIELD
The citation. «… ‘development
studies’ has held an unquestioned position in contemporary Geography, offering,
despite itself, a capsule of the exotic in a matrix of ‘normal’ mainstream
Geography, comfortable in the normalized categories of the ‘political’,
‘economic’, ‘cultural’ or ‘historical’ Geography of the developed world» (p. 51).
My position. I do not think that the introduction of such directions as
"political", "economic", "cultural",
"historical", as well as "social" geography is correct.
This leads to a blurring of the integrity of the research domain of geography.
It is not necessary to mix geography with political science, economics,
cultural studies, history, and sociology. This also applies to soil geography,
geography of climates and other directions, the emergence of which indicates a
fuzzy idea of the domain of geography as an independent science. This has led
to a decrease in its importance.
Very good
question and the answer: «Where
is the division between physical and human geography in such studies? Indeed,
where does the Geography start and stop? It is not easy (or perhaps useful) to
say, but the centrality of fieldwork to such research, and the relevance of
geographers’ contributions to those outside the subject, cannot be doubted» (p. 52).
GEOGRAPHY, FIELD SCIENCE AND
EDUCATION
I was interested
in the work of T.H. Huhlei "Physiography: An Introduction to the Study of
Natura"[2].
Unfortunately, the term "physiography" is now little used by
geographers, although fields and research begin with physiographic
observations. On the Internet, we have the following definition (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/physiography): The
subfield of geography that
studies physical patterns and
processes of the Earth. It aims to understand the forces that produce and
change rocks, oceans, weather, and global flora and fauna patterns. I think
that the physiographic structure of the day (visible) surface is the basis for
the formation of the landscape as an image of this surface.
FIELDWORK AND GEOGRAPHICAL
REVOLUTIONS
This text
demonstrates how so-called interdisciplinarity destroys geography and students
cease to understand what to look for and what geography is all about. «In human geography, the Quantitative
Revolution at first led research away from the field, towards the quantitative
analysis of aggregate human behaviour ... To quantitative human geographers,
fieldwork was a source of the all-important ‘data’, particularly through
quantitative questionnaire surveys, and the rigorous of sampling design
provided a suitable opening gambit for arcane statistical wizardry. The advent
of socio-economic data in electronic form, latterly online, has allowed
research analysis to be detached from the mundane complexities of data
collection» (p. 54 - 55). Neither
aggregate human behaviour nor socio-economic data is the subject of geographical
exploration. It so happened that representatives of the so-called social,
economic or socio-economic geographies departed from field research and ceased
to include in their developments the basis on which anthropized forms of
organization of the geographical environment are formed: they went the simplest
way. Therefore, we
have the following: «The repeated shocks and
aftershocks of social and cultural theory have led human geography towards more
abstracted and theoretical concerns derived from elsewhere in the social
sciences and humanities. In their efforts to establish relations with a
diversity of fields, and in the process to make Geography seem more scholarly,
some human geographers have tended to deplore the lack of scholarly expertise
(and patrician style) implied by a reliance on fieldwork. Some human
geographers have come to use the field as a theatrical arena, to put theory
through its paces and show off its delights and drawbacks. Travel literature,
art and social theory, for example, have become important subjects for human
geographical enquiry in their own right; indeed the discursive construction of
‘the field’ itself is recognized as an important subject for geographical
enquiry» (p. 55). I think it is worth talking not
about human geography, but about anthropogeography, especially since such a
name has long existed.
DISCUSSION
It is difficult
to disagree with the final conclusion of the authors: «We
believe that the field is fundamental to geographical enquiry and
understanding. It is one of the keys to understanding geographers, and why they
cannot simply be split up into cognate departments. It is not a guarantee of
unity» (p. 57).
4
THE POTENTIAL OF GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS
AND EARTH OBSERVATION
Paul A. Longley and Michael J. Barnsley
INTRODUCTION: THE (GRADUAL) END OF GEOGRAPHY?
I would like to
draw your attention to the following message from the authors: «More generally, this chapter takes the
perspective that Geography is losing its way precisely because so many of its
practitioners have retreated from the quest of creating robust, defensible
generalizations about spatial patterns and processes. This is increasingly
translated into our teaching. Most Geography students experience courses in
‘geographical concepts’ that, in practice, turn out to be long on how to think
about scientific method, but short on the ‘doing’ of Geography» (63).
My position. The emphasis is
on spatial patterns, which may not be a feature of geography. The spatial
dimension is present in most scientific fields, and this does not mean that
geography is relevant to their subjects of study. I think this is one of the
largest delusions of geographers, because such a vision has for many decades
blocked the search for a truly geographical vision - the organization of
geographical entities. And the authors also emphasize this
point: «This
is perhaps all more astonishing because
the spatial dimension is viewed as inherently important by researchers and
problem solvers working in a wide range of other academic and professional
disciplines» (p. 64).
SO WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT SPATIAL?
I want to
discuss the following statements of the authors: «In
the broadest sense, ‘geographical’ means ‘pertaining to the Earth’s surface or
near surface’ and, in their most basic forms, EO and GIS allow us to construct
inventories of where things (events, activities, policies, strategies and
plans) happen on the Earth’s surface, and when. They also provide tools to
analyse events and occurrences, across a range of spatial scales from the
architectural to the global, and over a range of time horizons from the
operational to the strategic» (p. 65).
My position. I cannot agree that the geographical domain, at least its empirical
section, is closely related to the day (earth) surface or in her neighbourhood,
but the events that take place here, the processes and structures that occur
here, are not only geographical. Moreover, each individual process is not geographical.
Geography deals with their combined action, which leads to coherence through
mutual influences. Therefore, this is not a defining point for geography.
Another thing is the emergence of geographically organized entities that should
be revealed as wholeness. The task of geographers is to identify entities that,
while complex, exhibit behaviours inherent in holistic objects. And where and
when they are formed is additional.
The authors
discuss issues of law in geography. At one time, such laws were formulated
(primarily under the influence of physics), but later it became clear that they
were invented or not just geography (such as the so-called Tobler’s ‘First Law
of Geography’). It should be borne in mind that the law can be deduced if we
deal with the regularity of what is constantly being reproduced. But in the
geographical environment everything is constantly changing and the states are
never repeated, which makes it impossible to carry out laboratory experiments.
This fact denies the possibility of deriving geographical laws. Tobler’s ‘First
Law of Geography’ is not a law but a generalization. The authors also hint at
this: «Yet
regularities that can attain the status of laws are rare, if not entirely
absent, from Geography, and it is usually the case that the best that we can
hope for is a robust and defensible ability to generalize, based upon observed
distributions of events and occurrences» (p. 67). At the same time, I cannot agree with the
expression "spatial process" because it means that there are
non-spatial processes. Also, I cannot agree with the authors' assertion that «The geographer’s art is fundamentally
about understanding how and why significant events may be unevenly distributed
across space and time; the geographer’s science is fundamentally concerned with
generalizing effectively between and about them» (p. 67).
WHAT ARE GIS AND EO, AND HOW ARE THEY RELATED?
…………………………………….
WHY ARE EO AND GIS IMPORTANT?
…………………………………….
UNIFIED APPROACHES TO EO AND GIS:
AN ILLUSTRATIVE APPLICATION
…………………………………….
CONCLUSION
…………………………………….
Part III
A FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENT
INTRODUCTION
John A. Matthews and David T. Herbert
The citation. «Although
curiosity in geographical aspects of the Earth’s surface has greater antiquity,
modern Geography began when interactions between the biophysical and human
worlds were perceived as important enough, and different enough from other
fields of knowledge and understanding, to constitute a separate discipline» (p. 83).
My position. This idea is important to understand when modern geography began. This
happened when society was aware of the fact that human society is not an excluded
formation but a natural stage of evolution occurring in a geographical
environment. The consequence is the origin of the anthroposphere, which is formed
in the process of co-evolution of all components of the geographical
environment. Therefore, we can no longer talk about relations in the system
"environment - human" (this relationship is important when
considering the dynamics of society), within geography it is a holistic
formation. Geography is not a space-time discipline, as Turner (2002)[3]
points out, it is the science about the forms of organization of formations with
the geographical level of complexity and space and time are the parameters intended
for display. The scheme is interesting: (Figure III.1) «Some ways in which environment–human interactions have been
conceptualized» (Source: adapted from Knight (1992)), which geographers should
pay attention to.
On p. 86 authors
cite aspects that are of interest to physical geographers and human
geographers. But this does not mean that these aspects are relevant to
geography. This applies to both climate change (the field of climatology as a
constituent of atmology), and changes in vegetation (botany, palaeobotany), and
soil (soil science). Even more troublesome is the list of aspects of interest
to human geographers. «Human geographers have carried out
parallel studies on shifting populations and new forms of settlement, and
changing economies or political systems …» (p. 86). Issues such as population migration and changes in population, new
forms of settlements, changes in economic and political systems are not
geographical in essence. These are domains of study of demography, economics, and
political science. There is no geography of the population, economic and
political geography; there are artificial directions, the existence of which
adversely affects geography as a science, which has its own separate domain of
study. By the way, the dilution of research domains of physical and human
geography does not contribute to the formation of geography as a holistic science
with a single object of study.
5
ENVIRONMENTALISM AND GEOGRAPHY
The great debate?
Peter Beaumont and Chris Philo
INTRODUCTION
Environmentalism
is an extremely interesting scientific and practical branch, which I take as a
transition to General Geography. This trend already requires the emergence and
spread of a special culture - geoculture.
The definition of environmentalism given by K. Miltor[4]
is indeed correct: «‘For those who espouse its principles,
environmentalism is essentially, though not uniquely, a quest for a viable
future, pursued through the implementation of culturally defined
responsibilities’ (1993: 2)» (p. 94). The authors write: «By ‘environment’ in this context is usually meant the
surrounding world of objects and processes, principally as contained in the
‘physical landscape’ of oceans, mountains, forests, deserts and so on, but
also, for some at least, as contained in the ‘human landscape’ of cultivation
and built forms. The human–environment relation of interest here includes a material/technical
aspect, an ethical bond and even a spiritual one. Human beings react to their
environment, are influenced by it, and equally for some they have a
responsibility towards it. At the same time, they cannot but think about the
environment, maybe feel things quite deeply about it too, and so there is both
an external dimension to how humans relate to the environment (the actions of
one on the other) and an internal dimension (filtered through the
thought-worlds of the humans involved)» (p. 94 - 95).
THE FACES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM IN
A (POST)MODERN CONTEXT
A world environmentalist agenda?
……………………………………..
Environmentalism and new political and social
groupings
……………………………………..
The contested ‘nature’ of environmentalism
The citation. «A
study of the ‘nature’ of environmentalism reveals that one is indeed dealing
with a mass of interconnecting materials that can be assembled in many
different ways to elucidate a particular point of view. Given this,
environmentalism is best seen as a multidimensional space within which people
can select a variety of ideas, themes and issues to produce a personal view or
model of the world. When viewed from such a perspective, it becomes obvious
that rigid definitions of environmentalism fail to encompass the rich variety
of the subject matter that falls within it. Within this space certain areas or
combination of ideas and themes appear to have become fashionable at particular
times, but given the complexity of the system it is not surprising that new
areas of interest within this complex space are constantly being explored» (p. 98).
My comment. What is within environmentalism is «a mass of interconnecting materials that
can be assembled in many different ways to elucidate a particular point of view» and «environmentalism is best seen as a multidimensional
space within which people can select a variety of ideas» demonstrates how it differs from
geography in its future version: geography has one purpose - to study the
forms of organization of the geographical level of complexity, which include
the three main actors - abiota, biota and anthropota, whose action over time
becomes more coherent and concerted. The main aspect is the
organization based on the interaction between the components, as well as the
production of information in the form of behaviour and structure. So, if
environmentalism is ecocentric, then geography is organizational-centric. In
addition, ecology is biocentric, it is a section of biology.
Environmentalism in the academy
………………………………………..
MEETING GROUNDS BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTALISM
AND ACADEMIC GEOGRAPHY
I really like
the saying: «Sometimes,
it is even difficult to decide who is a geographer» (p. 102). This question
is related to another question: what is geography exploring? Some believe that
the terms "geographical" and "spatial" are synonymous and,
accordingly, when it comes to spreading something (anything), it is already
geography. This is a huge mistake. Geography has nothing to do with this. And
the geographers themselves are to blame because they have not yet clearly
defined their area of study.
Geographers studying ‘environmentalisms’
……………………………………………….
Geographers studying the (post)modern environmentalist
movement
……………………………………………….
Geographers inspired by environmentalism
……………………………………………….
Geographers conceptualizing their identity in terms of
environmentalism
……………………………………………….
6
BEYOND ENVIRONMENTALISM
Towards sustainability
Timothy O’Riordan
PERSPECTIVE
The following text contains valuable meanings:
«Environmentalism has always
been with us. It speaks for the human condition. Humans are optimistic and
interventionist, but we fear our prowess and are constantly reminded of our
ignorance of nature’s ways. So we are also cautious and caring.
Environmentalism has always captured this ambiguous anxiety and this flaw in
our sense of anthropogenic distinctiveness. At its root environmentalism is a
stimulant to extraordinary bursts of innovation in technology, management,
valuation and participation. It is also a reminder that we may never know our
true selves and our ultimate purpose on this extraordinary planet.
For the geographer, environmentalism
permits an open examination of cultural bonding and social division. Most
societies seek to survive, to design rules and customs in order to co-operate.
Most societies also exploit the land and their neighbours, and create political
structures that lead to division and dissent. For geographers nowadays, the
trick is to work with communities to establish practices that restore nature
and social well-being, that are culturally resonant with history, yet realistic
in the face of local power relations» (p.
117).
But I emphasize that geographic research must proceed
from the integrity of the geographical environment, without removing any single
component beyond its boundaries. It is valuable that the author demonstrates the
connection of humanity with nature, with the cosmos and the general process of
evolution. Equally
significant is the "second model": «Another model lies between the rational
and the ideal. This is the distinction in science between knowledge and
knowing. Rational analysis is still the basic of much Geography training.
Helping to understand how people ‘know’ and how social intelligence is
constructed also lies in the domain of Geography. We need to nurture both
‘styles’ of knowledge and to help to blend them for planetary citizenship» (p. 118).
The
authors show further that the effect of environmentalism as a way of thinking
has become: «Enter
sustainability. Here we see a protean notion that is still in its early
budding. Sustainability became the buzz phrase of the 1990s, and the
transformational politics of the twenty-first century. Sustainability is
genuinely revolutionary, striking at all aspects of our souls, our social purpose
and our future lifestyles. Sustainability seeks to unite the planet and the
human family in one supportive and inextricable embrace. Sustainability is a
new politics and a new humanity. We have barely begun to see how and why
sustainability might manifest itself. This is because our outlooks, our
economic and political institutions, and indeed our social relations are all
inured in non-sustainability perspectives. We cannot see out of our historical
prison bars» (p. 118). I
think that implementation of this approach should be based on the concept of
coherence of human activities with the functioning of the biosphere. This idea
became the basis of my conception of the "Biosphere Country"
developed in 1997, the essence of which is in the following: human society is
inserted into the biotized environment of the planet, therefore, its
sustainable functioning should be ensured through the allocation of territories
that are not included in the states. Such territory should be inseparable in
order to ensure the migration processes of the biota.
THE HUMAN IMPACT
I can't help but hold these thoughts: «The planet is remarkably resilient: the evidence of
systematic breakdown of global environmental support systems is patchy but
increasingly persuasive. Marginal and vulnerable peoples do remarkably adapt
and survive, but they should not be placed in a position to do so» (p.
119).
Human development
Human
development issues should not have to do with geography.
Land and food
This question
lies outside the geographic research domain.
Urbanization
One of the most
important regimes that have been and continue to be in the geographical
environment.
Biodiversity
One of the most
important indicators that make possible to evaluate the state of the biosphere
as a macro-actor of the geographical environment.
Water
Natural
component, which presence determines the possibility of life existence and
development but water is the domain of hydrology research as an independent
discipline.
Fisheries
It has nothing
to do with geography.
THE LEGACY OF ENVIRONMENTALISM
It is an interesting
and useful section. Issues of environmental ideologies should be considered by
geographers.
Cornucopian technocentrism
……………………………………
Accommodationist technocentrism
……………………………………
Ecocentrism
I would like to
draw your attention to this statement: «Holism is
admired but is not considered practical. Intrinsic natural rights are professed
but rarely put into practice. Integrity of life worlds of leisure and work and
social identity shift and shoal, but do not coalesce around environmental
well-being» (p. 126). In my opinion, it is more correct to speak not of
ecocentrism, but of biosphere-centrism. And the fact that this ideology has not
yet been put into practice indicates that world society has not yet reached the
required level of culture and consumer attitudes towards nature remain a
priority. What is given in an open letter to the UN Secretary-General points to
this:
«Despite
the fact that the past 50 years have seen a five-fold increase in world
economic growth and a nineteen-fold increase in the volume of world trade, the
world during that time has experienced unprecedented poverty and environmental
chaos, globalisation of economic development could not have failed more
dramatically, yet the agenda for the Summit demands acceleration of the same
disastrous policies.
(The
Ecologist, 2002: 4)» (p. 127).
Humanity produces too much waste, which consumes a lot
of resources. We have bloated production, and this issue is not under control
unless we take into account the mechanisms of economic crises. The text of the
next paragraph is just that:
«The
Swedish Environment Advisory Council Study (2002: 7) on socio-ecological
resilience urges a new form of governance. This should be networked, participative,
co-operative, burden sharing, learning and adapting. It should encourage
self-organization and ensure that ecosystem-based science have a basic right to
provide the nurturing functions on which all life depends. The use of scenarios
and adaptive management techniques to accountable responsiveness in new
democratic forms is also vital. Policy should recognize the coupled independence
for human and natural forms and functions, and stimulate socio-ecological
resilience by recognizing ecological thresholds, uncertainty, purpose and
precaution. Governance should create platforms for adaptive management processes
and flexible multiple-level forms of dividing, that can learn, generate suitable
knowledge and cope with change. Such patterns create management
diversity» (p. 127).
FROM ENVIRONMENTALISM TO SUSTAINABILITY
From the
position of geographer I would not write «from environmentalism to sustainability» but «from environmentalism to geographism as the basis of sustainability» and the following text matches this: «So
we should begin with the self. Environmentalism is a state of being, an
expression of self-awareness, and the recognition of the obligations of
citizenship. Looking at ourselves as conscious individuals, we are,
essentially, the product of the remotest chance. First, we exist on a planet
that may have no equal in the cosmos. The fact that there is life on a planet
which is in deep chemical and physical disequilibrium, is in itself remarkable.
Then we should ask: how did our parents meet? And their parents in turn? In
almost every case, they met through unexpected or unanticipated circumstances.
Any given sperm has only a remote chance of fertilizing. So, the evidence that
each of us exists, has consciousness, at this momentous moment of planetary and
human history is, at least, a marvel, and may indeed have deeper meaning» (p. 128). At the same time, I note that
"sustainability" it cannot be considered as just steadiness, because
development requires fragility.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GAIA THESIS
Wonderful words
by James Lovelock. Scientists will have to prove for a long time that his mind
has seized at the same time. «He brings together the huge literature on the coupling
of biotic and abiotic processes to suggest that, as we probe deeper and deeper
into the workings of the planet, the evidence of auto-regulation across space,
time and process mounts up» (p. 129). This concept is deeply geographical.
SUSTAINABILITY AS AN UNFOLDING PROCESS
«The
Gaian perspective underlies the principles of sustainability. A healthy planet
will support, and will be supported by, healthy people. Healthy people are at
peace with each other, share each other’s joy and despair, and work to create a
reliable and secure economy for themselves, their families and their neighbourhoods.
This healthiness is permanent, both established and won by innovation and
revelation. The transition to sustainability is a process of exploration and
learning in which everyone has to be consciously engaged» (p. 131).
THE BRUNDTLAND REPORT
……………………………………..
ADDRESSING GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY
Undoubtedly, the
issue of sustainable (in my opinion better coordinated) development is deeply
geographical. As the author points out, «Sustainable
development is nearly always characterized as a ‘triple bottom line’ (TBL) of
amalgamating environmental, social and economic well-being into a common audit»
(p. 132), and further: «The very notion of a
‘bottom line’ suggests a business mentality of profit and loss and net gain,
demonstrable to the shareholders and still palatable to the consumer. What is
missing in this metaphor is the governance dimension. Even if we buy a triple
bottom line, how do we measure it, organize ourselves to achieve it, evaluate
our successes and failures, and prepare the ground for a participatory
democracy that may still embrace sustainability with purpose and joy?»
(p. 133). But, as the author rightly implies, «In practice, sadly, the world does not
deliver governance for sustainability. There is no truly participatory democracy:
only variants of power-based governing where legitimation of consultation and
inclusion play their hands» (p. 133), and: «The task for the geographer is to find
more equitable political theory to allow this to flourish beyond rhetoric» (p. 133). The author makes an important conclusion: «But,
as yet, there is no administrative structure tested or visualized that could do
this job. This is certainly the task of the open-minded geographer of the
future» (p. 133), and «The aim is to get away from single pattern solutions
for meeting environmental, social and economic needs where such needs are
highly variable at the local level» (p. 133).
BEYOND THE BUSINESS CASE FOR SUSTAINABILITY
…………………………………………
MARKING THE SUSTAINABILITY CARD
This is an
important statement by the author, who emphasizes that geography should lead
the way in addressing the threshold of transition to sustainability: «Sustainability
appraisal will appear. It is inevitable if we are to cross any threshold to
sustainability. It is also intensely interdisciplinary and highly appropriate
for sustainability science. Above all, it necessarily links socio-ecological
systems thinking to new forum of governance for sustainability. This is
certainly an arena that is crying out for involvement and leadership from
geographers» (p. 138).
PERSPECTIVE ON THE UNITY OF GEOGRAPHY
The citation. «Sustainability
should reunify Geography. It carries at its core ecosystem functioning, the
values of such functions aesthetically, economically and biologically, and the
need to resonate them for adaptation and learning about the human condition. It
equally carries the principles of peace, justice, resilience and reciprocity.
These are core geographical outcomes of how people relate to themselves in a
habitable world. It carries through the notions of ecological resilience to
social well-being and adaptability, and to economic well-being and ecological
reliability. All these are core notions in the perspective of Geography ... .
Even more, sustainability is about governance, i.e. patterns of managing,
accommodating, sharing and acting that generate the goals of resilience,
well-being and livelihoods» (p. 138).
My position. I think it is not to reunite geography, but to become a goal that will
allow geography to finally show its distinctiveness and significance in a cohort of scientific disciplines. This is a chance for geography to demonstrate
their ability to solve complex problems. And the author states: «To be successful, the ‘sustainability’
geographer will be:
•
analytical but fair;
•
conscious of values but not value projecting;
•
sensitive to the politicization of science, yet not afraid of facing politics;
•
able to engage stakeholders and detects those who should be stakeholders and
make them so;
•
link economics to sociology, to psychology, to natural sciences in the rounded
valuation of ecosystem services;
•
form partnerships with government, business and civil society to move the
agenda forward;
•
be ready for even more adventurous pilot and participatory approaches to
governance and have the capacity to monitor and evaluate this against
sustainability appraisal indicators;
•
recognize trust and build on it» (p. 139).
CONCLUSION
Here I want to
draw attention to point 3:
«Sustainability is a matter of new forms
of governance, not just the linkage of the economic, social and environmental
dimensions. The new forms of governance are multilayered, operate across a
divergent and unified space at times, create partnerships between the public,
private and civic spheres, and demand new forms of evaluation and appraisal.
The opportunity to examine the push for and the elements of these new forms of
governance are immense» (p. 140).
My position: So these are new forms of governance, and I think they should be
directed at managing the organization.
7
HUMAN VULNERABILITY,
PAST CLIMATIC VARIABILITY
AND SOCIETAL CHANGE
David Taylor and Anna R. Davies
It is a very
nefarious chapter, which, however, has no direct relation to geography, because
it does not cover the whole geographical environment.
Part IV
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PLACE
INTRODUCTION
David T. Herbert and John A. Matthews
The citation. «Terms such as place, area, territory and
region have always occupied a prominent position in geographical thought.
Regionalism gave the discipline one of its founding paradigms and its
significance has not so much diminished as changed in character over the years
(see, for example, Whittlesey, 1954[5]).
The concept of the region suggested that there were identifiable segments of
the Earth’s surface that took on special meaning. That meaning could be
acquired from a variety of sources. There were physical regions such as the
Alps, the Steppes or the Ganges delta where the defining features were
topographic or climatic. Perhaps more tellingly there were human geographical
regions made particular by some facet of their history and culture that gave
them a sense of identity. When Vidal de la Blache (1926)[6]
developed the concept of regionalism in France, it was based on these kinds of
interpretations; regions were set apart form each other by the interaction
between people and nature and by the role of human agency on landscape.
Hartshorne (1939)[7]
expressed support for the regional theme in rather more ‘mechanical’ ways in
his concept of areal differentiation or the recognition of different areas on
the surface of the Earth» (p. 163).
My comment. I like the authors' view of these terms, but in some cases, the
definitions may be different. It is important that they are not regarded as
taxonomic units (as is the case, for example, in Russian geography for the term
"locality"/"terrain") and scale is taken from the meso- to
the micro-scale. The structure of the daytime (visible) surface can be
complicated. Yes, some areas may be embedded in larger areas, as shown in the
figure.
Nilots on the
Sudud swamp (South Sudan).
The citation. «Place
is more than that; it has an added value in experiential terms. The term place
then is one that ranks highly in the lexicon of geographical terms and is in
many ways unique among the key concepts of Geography, though especially in
human Geography. The word itself has a depth of meaning and can stand alone
without embroidery, amplification or modification as a meaningful geographical
concept» (p. 164).
My remark. The
notionі ‘place’ ‘area’,
‘territory’ and ‘region’ are used not only geographers, but it is also used widely.
The presence of a place means the presence of something and allows you to
determine its relation to other things: there is no empty place. Therefore, it
is not a geographical concept (like the others above) but one that is used in
geography.
The citation. «Space
has limited independent meaning and is in effect a relational concept (Sack,
1972). It has to be qualified by time, context, and a range of economic, social
and political factors» (p. 164).
My remark. There are some
difficulties with the concept of "space" (as well as time). There is
no space (like time) as such. Therefore, to write that «It has to be qualified
by time, context, and a range of economic, social and political factors» is
incorrect. Rather, the image of space is formed by the context, the
heterogeneity of the environment. The processes that take place in the environment and
the structures they generate are the basis for shaping the image of space in
the human mind. So the leading
concept is a changing environment that allows you to enter the concept of time.
The authors write: «Environment is another concept
that needs to be qualified in a number of ways. The dominant assumption is that
the term refers to the natural environment but there are other ‘relational’
interpretations, such as social environments, built environments and political
environments that are studied by geographers» (p. 165). I don't think
so. Geographers should study part of the earth's environment, which is
characterized by a geographical level of complexity - a geographical
environment, and all other variants are not relevant to geography.
The citation. «The
unique quality of place is that it goes beyond the objective and has affective
meanings. Over and above the allied concepts, or properties, of area, territory
and region, place engenders emotions. There is a sense of place, of belonging
and identity that finds their full
expression in the concept of place. Place embodies the harmony of a defined
territory and the meanings and experiences that are attached to it»
My remark. I think that
emotions are caused not by a place, but by the fact that it, so to speak,
underlies - a certain formation together with the context and, accordingly,
other places. But there is one
question that creates the "magic" of the place: why is it that this
place is appearing here? Is it possible to speak of a certain tension between
places, and if so, what is its nature? And what about the expression
"quiet place"? The authors give the opinion of R.D. Sack, which is
considered original: «He used the metaphor of the loom and argued
that ‘place, like a loom, has a structure and dynamic that are indispensable to
undertaking projects by helping us to weave things together’. ‘Places
in this sense are the geographical instruments we construct that allow us to
transform nature and culture, to combine and interweave the two’» Sack R.D. (2001: 107)[8]. But I do not think that such a metaphor is correct.
Then the place becomes a feature of complex physical education, which is not
true. Often, "place" is defined as space (often
the earth's surface) occupied or occupied by anyone. // Space (item, point)
where something is placed, happens, etc. // A definite point, a plane intended
for anyone, anything. // A specific area specially designed to accommodate it.
(https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D1%96%D1%81%D1%86%D0%B5). At the same time, they forget that all this is
placed and happens not only in space but also in time (if you take these
parameters into consideration) because everything has its length and duration.
And, of course, geographers cannot act as place makers.
And on: «Place catches the very basis of the
Geography around which we build our lives. Home and neighbourhood, a sense of
roots, localities that are imbued with memories and rich with experience, are
all concepts that can be expressed through the idea of place. Geographers have
long worked on or around the concept of place and it is in that sense a true
unifying bond. Other key words such as landscape, area and region have integral
connections with place; it embodies them and adds something of its own» (p. 165). It is interesting thoughts, although ordinary people, perceiving the
place, feeling it, do not mention geography. There are also questions about the
relationship between the terms "place" (on the one hand) and
"landscape", "area", "region" on the other. First,
it seems to me that "space" has some major limitations. For example,
when we are discussing the nature of Andes Mountains, we do not use the term
"place". Secondly, I don't think that "landscape" and
"place" are interconnected, because "landscape" is an image
of the terrain. So these issues are debatable.
The authors used
a very important quote from Tuan's work: «How
mere spaces became an intensely human place is a task for the humanistic geographer. It appeals to such distinctly humanistic interest as the nature of experience, the quality of the emotional bond to physical objects, and the role of concepts and symbols in the creation of the place identity. (Tuan, 1976: 269)[9]» (p. 165). I think the problem of "place" is philosophical.
As for physic-geographers
(in the traditional use of the term), I think for them the "place"
has a normal meaning in life, and that's normal. As for geographers, many of
them like the term "place", and they have decided to make it a
geographical term, but it gives nothing because this term has a common usage.
Very complicated
and interesting paragraph! «Place is a fundamental concept in
Geography. For human geographers, it embraces components of land and territory,
history and rootedness, values and meaning, endowing it with qualities to which
many disparate lines of enquiry can relate. Place can be interpreted as a
visible territory, as a palimpsest of time and change, as a receptacle of
meanings and experience. It can be represented as a measurable area, as an
artist’s portrayal of landscape, as a group’s sense of identity and as an
individual’s memory of ‘home’. Figure IV.1 attempts in a simple way to capture
the ability of place to feature in a diversity of geographical perspectives. As
a concept it is interpreted in a variety of ways yet retains its essence as a
core component in the practice of Geography. In that sense it is a powerful
unifying bond. We study places that have a degree of boundedness however
variable that may be. An acceptance of the concept of place is not to accede to
some unqualified doctrine of spatial fetishism; it is to recognize reality for
what it is» (p. 167).
My remark. "Place"
cannot be a fundamental concept in geography; it is a concept used by
geographers, often in a rather vague sense. And it is not necessary to divide
geographers into physical and human because they all explore the same
environment. The aspects highlighted by the authors concern more
anthropologists and culturologists. I cannot agree that the place can be
imagined as visible territory, as a measured area (not in the same sense), but
I agree that the place can be imagined as a palimpsest of time, as the content of
meaning and experience, as a memory of the individual about "home". Definitely,
"place" cannot be considered not only the main but also generally as
a component in the practice of geography, because "place" is an
information pool, rather a mental construct than something physical. As for
Figure IV.1[10]
- Alternative geographical interpretations of place, I take it for fictional.
Here is another
difficult paragraph to consider: «Place then is an important concept for Geography. It
overlaps with and sometimes substitutes for other key terms such as region,
area and landscape but still adds a dimension of its own. Place can be studied
in its own right as an identifiable segment of the Earth’s surface with a
particular set of identifying features. It can also be seen as a mirror of
society, reflecting both the history and the distributions of power of the
context in which it has emerged. Place for geographers is part of the Earth’s
surface with a spatial identity and boundaries that separate it from other
places. Some places are very clearly defined in these terms; others are more
opaque. Is this spatial fetishism? To accuse geographers of having a fetish
with space is like accusing dentists of having a fetish with teeth! Of course,
we can see place in the context of society, time and change, but it is an
essential concept for the practice of Geography» (p. 168).
My remark. I
cannot agree that the place «overlaps with and sometimes substitutes for other key
terms such as region, area and landscape but still adds a dimension of its own». If that were the case, we would be dealing with
terminological redundancy. I also don't think places are being explored as «an identifiable segment of the Earth's
surface with a particular set of identifying features». The authors define "place" as a «part of the Earth's surface with a
spatial identity and boundaries that separate it from other places», but so defined "locality"/"terrain".
The authors wonder: «Is
this spatial fetishism?» and they say, «To accuse geographers of having a fetish
with space, is like accusing dentists of having a fetish with teeth!». Well, comparing geographers to dentists is an exaggeration.
Regarding the fact that geographers suffer from a spatial fetish, so it is,
although this is not common to all.
8
REGIONS, AREA STUDIES AND THE MEANING OF PLACE
Tim Unwin and Jim Rose
INTRODUCTION
It
is a very good beginning: «We do not believe that academic enquiry, be it scientific
explanation, humanist understanding or critical theory, is something that can
merely be learnt and regurgitated in student examinations; rather, it is
something alive and dynamic, that each person explores and challenges for
themselves» (p. 171).
REGIONS
TIM Unwin asks the very right questions: «… do you think that
the study of regions is really area studies, and that regions are nothing other
than places? Or do you think that there are actually significant differences
between them?»
JIM Rose's answer concerns the study of
physic-geographers: «… they have in the past and still do, study regions for their own
sake. Funnily enough, the end-point of much palaeoenvironmental research
involves reconstructing palaeogeographies, and many of the present-day big
issues of Quaternary science are concerned with reconstructing or modelling
palaeogeographies. Only with this information will we be able to understand the
nature, scale and rate of change on planet Earth, and it is this knowledge that
is needed to solve the big problems of global change» (p. 172). So on.
My remark. It is interesting that the "region"
seems to be perceived by the authors as something existing rather than what is
distinguished in the environment by geographers. But in nature, nothing exists
separately, so regions still need to be separated, using certain criteria. In
my opinion, it was necessary first to discuss the issue of region allocation. In my
opinion, it was necessary first to discuss the
issue of region allocation. It is clear that this should occur on the basis of
the presence of certain structures, predetermined by the action of the
respective processes, but in the geographical environment many processes are
simultaneously operating and the traces of their action are superimposed, and
the areas are not always the same. Therefore, identifying regions (as well as
localities) is not a simple task: the approaches of different researchers may
be different. And space here is nothing at all. Do not forget that
"space" is a product of abstract thinking, and its ability is due to
the differentiation of the environment in which the observer is.
The
following statements are quite interesting: «Following on from that, it does seem that
physical and human geographers have in recent years tended to branch out and go
their separate ways. I have always felt that there has perhaps not been enough
work done by physical and human geographers coming together. But early in the
twentieth century the idea of the region was actually one way that both parts
of the discipline could indeed unite around a common theme … . Do you think the
region actually served as this unifying concept?» (p. 173).
My remark. In my opinion, such branching of geography
(late 19th - early 20th century) was artificial at all and did not have
sufficient grounds. This was a result of the fact that geographers could not
clearly imagine what geography should study. Unfortunately, we still have that
today. I see two reasons for this. First, geographers have encountered a great
deal of complexity and have seen a way out to explore the so-called components
of nature. Secondly, human was separated from nature and opposed to it, which
caused a "need" in the department of human geography and such options
as economic, social, political geography, etc. Now the representatives of these
artificial directions are resisting.
JIM: «In
the early part of the twentieth century we were concerned to describe and
understand many aspects of Geography of the Earth with a new degree of detail
and precision. The region provided a convenient way of doing that at that time,
because a regional homogeneity, either physical or human, provided a framework
in which at least one variable was constant. For physical geography this
variable may have been relief or climate; for human geography it may have been
a political domain or an economic affinity» (p. 174).
My remark. That is the case that representatives of
different directions were looking for their variables, instead of looking for
one - a common one. This remains a problem today.
AREA STUDIES
…………………………….
THE PRACTICE OF PHYSICAL AND HUMAN GEOGRAPHY
Here
I was interested in the following. Tim introduces the following question: «We’ve already
suggested that what we might call pure forms of physical and human geography,
that is systematic forms, were indeed practised in the earlier part of the
twentieth century, and so to characterize Geography before the 1960s as largely
being concerned with regions and interactions between the physical and human
worlds is rather simplistic. It does seem to me that since the 1960s, and we
did touch on this a little bit earlier, there has been an increasing divide
between physical and human geography which only now is beginning to come back
together. It is actually, though, quite difficult to identify precisely why
that shift occurred. Would you have any thoughts or insights on that from your
own experience? Why was it, say in the 1970s, that most physical geographers
had so little engagement with human geographers» (p. 179). And Jim explains: «I’m not sure that I
agree with your question. Most of those that I have any research links with
have no interest in human geography at the research level. However, if your
assumption is correct, then I think that physical geographers in the 1970s were
spending all of their mental energy on getting to grips with their research» (p. 180) and on. What
is the problem? First, after the two directions diverged, the representatives
of each of them did their best to preserve them. Second, human geography had to
conduct end-to-end studies from abiotic level to anthropic, which was not done.
PLACES
An extremely important and complex question posed by Tim: «The difficult question
that obviously follows on from this is what is it that makes Geography special?» (p. 182). His answer
is as follows: «To
me, part of the answer is that one can only understand some of the more
pressing global problems, like environmental change or the complexities of
social differentiation, or indeed the problems facing people living in the
poorer countries of the world, if the physical and the human aspects of those
issues are examined together. This being the case, we need each other to try to
solve them and have an effective role in the world. Such interactions occur in
particular places, and this is why I think that an understanding of place is so
crucial» (p. 182).
For
Jim, this has a different meaning
which he concentrates on the issue: «For a physical geographer, like me, could you define the
differences between place and space?» (p. 182).
Tim continues the discussion: «In a nutshell, to me, it is the involvement of
people, as emotional beings, in the physical world that creates particular
places. I think the word space is abused far too much, and I prefer to see it
defined very much in the way that physicists do, particularly in terms of
different dimensions within which activities happen and things are shaped. To
me, what is shaped is then place (for a more detailed exploration of these
ideas, see Unwin, 1992, 2000). Looking out of the window here over the Thames
valley, with lots of trees in and houses, is that space? Or are those trees and
houses in space?»
(p. 182).
My reply. It's hard to disagree! And on:
JIM «That
is space.
TIM «And to me, what is in
space is what goes to make up place» (p. 182).
JIM «As
space, it could be analysed as such without any cultural rationale. Then to
understand it you may have to bring that cultural element in, and that’s where
I see the role of the human geographer» (p. 182).
My comment. I cannot agree on the role of human geography,
because its task is to study the anthropized geo-environment. As for TIM's view
of space and place, I would like to point out, firstly, that space does not
have dimensions; we introduce them; and by taking things in shape, we can form
an image of space. Further, not something that takes shape becomes a place, but
places are manifested by the fact that organizational entities emerge in the
environment, which we perceive through their position relative to other
entities, and are described in the coordinates of space and time (not just
space). And geography here to nothing: This is how the world is perceived and
constructed in our minds. We see that Jim does not agree with TIM's view:
«I can’t understand how
that can be possible»
(p. 183).
And TIM responds: «It is quite similar to
the concept of landscape … It does seem to me that many physical
geographers and human geographers treat the word ‘landscape’ very, very
differently. I certainly pick that up in marking undergraduates’ essays where,
when they refer to a landscape, and certainly as some geologists do, they are
using it almost as a concept devoid of human influence, whereas when most human
geographers use the word landscape they really use it to address a much wider
idea. It can be a landscape in the mind, the way we look at something can be a
landscape, as well as the human creation and shaping of a particular part of
the Earth’s surface (see, for example, Cosgrove, 1999)[11]» (p. 183).
Very
interesting discussion! Jim concludes «I value the word landscape is that one of the
big problems of studying the processes that shaped the landscape of the past,
which must be understood if one is going to understand the causes of change, is
the tendency to study individual processes, or perhaps small groups of process
– for instance river and hillslope process – in isolation. These studies
considered, say, river activity, in isolation from, say, biological or
biogeochemical processes that were operating in the catchment. Perhaps this was
convenient for the research project but it is unrealistic in terms of the way
that the landscape develops. Therefore, the word landscape is a word that I use
for teaching, to try to emphasize the whole array of processes and interactions» (p. 183 - 184).
My reply. But the processes do not form the landscape,
but the structure of the daytime (visible) surface, which we perceive as
landscape. Therefore, if we can identify processes that have worked in the
past, we can also imagine the corresponding landscapes. And the division of
geography into physical and human here to nothing, the concept of
"landscape" is not only geographical, but it is also widely used by
representatives of various scientific fields - economists, political
scientists, sociologists, linguists ... as well as ordinary people. It should
be added that the definition of the term "landscape" should not go
much beyond what is defined by ordinary citizens.
AFTERTHOUGHT
I
cannot agree with the conclusions of the authors. Today it is no longer
necessary to talk about the joint work of physical and human variants, because
Geography is seen as a holistic science that explores a geographical
environment formed by complex heterogeneous formations of the geographical
level of complexity. Therefore, you should abandon the names that came up in
due course. We have the only one Geography whose general issues are
concentrated in such a section as General Geography.
9
GLOBALIZATION
A spatial perspective
Wayne K.D. Davies
INTRODUCTION
The citation. «Globalization is a word that now seems on the lips of every
politician, commentator or author. It describes the increasing global spatial
flows, interconnections and interdependence of people, information, goods, organizations
and states that are connecting people and places at a world scale, and which
are creating changes in the structures and organizations of society and places» (p. 189).
My reply. I immediately have the question: are the
streams not spatial? This is exactly the case when talking about spatial
fetishism.
THE NEED FOR A ‘PHYSICAL’ AS WELL AS
A ‘HUMAN’ GLOBALIZATION
The citation. «In many ways it is unfortunate that the current use of the term
globalization is almost exclusively applied to recent human trends.
Geographers, of course, have always been very much aware that there are many
physical processes that operate on a global scale or have global effects. But
for most of the twentieth century the development of knowledge in the physical
and human sides of the subject operated in increasingly separate channels,
perhaps not simply a function of the specialization within the field, but also
because of the naive environmental determinism of the late nineteenth century,
which exaggerated the causal effect of physical processes upon human activity
and allowed human agency so little influence» (p. 190).
My reply. I don't see any unfortunate here. Humanity is
a young actor in the geographical environment, and only with the onset of the
industrialization era did it begin to influence it actively. Therefore, global
effect of its activities was not so long ago reflected in the expression
"global environmental crisis". As for the interaction between human
and physical (preferably natural) geography, I repeat that this division is
quite artificial. By the way, the very emergence of human activity as a global
actor could cause the separation of human geography.
The
authors write that «… the first human globalization took place between 80,000 and
30,000 years ago when Homo sapiens reached Australasia and the Americas,
respectively, but our ancestors had no conscious understanding of their global
achievement or the technology for continuous contact» (p. 191), but I do not think that the usual
spread of Homo sapiens can be
considered an example of globalization, because the production activity of
these people was negligible and the authors themselves point to the lack of
technologies for communication.
INDICATORS OF INCREASING INTERACTION
The
authors give examples of various processes that, through the introduction of
new technologies, have contributed to globalization. This is true because it is
a matter of significantly accelerating communication between remote
territories. But more important, from the point of view of geography, is the
question: what new forms of organization of global scale thus arise and how the
reorganization of the geographical environment in general does. The authors
give examples of various processes that, through the introduction of new technologies,
have contributed to globalization. This is true because it is a matter of
significantly accelerating communication between remote territories. But more
important, from the point of view of geography, is the question: what new forms
of organization of global scale thus arise and how the reorganization of the
geographical environment in general works. Particularly interesting is the
question: if is there a
coherence increasing between streams of different origin? Thus, waiting for
geographers it is important, not individual examples of increasing flows and
their speed, such as the emergence of multinational corporations, but how they
form, together with the natural component, a new organizational formation.
GLOBALIZATION AS A SITE OF CONTESTATION
……………………………………
IS COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY ENOUGH
TO EXPLAIN THE CHANGES?
…………………………………….
DIFFERENTIAL SPATIAL EFFECTS
My reply. Economics are irrelevant to geography!
Locational variations
My reply. All this is interesting, but it applies only
to humanity.
Economic variations
My reply. And where is the geography?
Migrations
My reply. This is about demographics!
Political variations
My reply. It has to do with political science.
Culture
This
is the domain of cultural studies. But one question has to do with geography.
This is the formation of a new culture - geoculture, the development and
distribution of which must lead to the formation of a new person – Homo sapiens
divinus.
CONCLUSION
I
would say this: globalization is a process that needs to move the geographical
environment to a new state. the task of geography is to identify the variants
of movement and the possible consequences of this process.
Part V
LANDSCAPE
The face of Geography
INTRODUCTION
John A. Matthews and David T. Herbert
It
is a very good introduction. The authors see the landscape as the
"face" of the Earth. In my designs, I used the metaphor of the face
of the terrain. It is very similar. For me, landscape is the organization of
drawing a day-surface (visible) within the terrain. This organization is
associated with the action of many processes, the integral action of which is a
landscape process. Landscape is a generalized pattern of terrain that is formed
in the human mind. I use the term "day surface" because other options
are not clear. This applies to the expression "Earth's surface" and
"land surface". But I am categorically opposed to defining the
landscape as «emphasize landscapes
as spatial units and functioning systems» (p. 217). But I am categorically opposed to defining
the landscape as "emphasize landscapes as spatial units and functioning
systems" or as communities or ecosystems. It is not a system either,
because the system consists of parts and the landscape is an indivisible image.
Landscapes should not be divided into 'natural' and 'cultural landscape',
rather, these are abiotic (physical), biotized, and anthropotized (eg,
agrarian) landscapes.
To
me, the following looks strange: «… landscape ecology or geoecology includes a ‘horizontal’ or
‘geographical’ aspect with an emphasis on spatial organization over the
landscape, and a ‘vertical’ or ‘ecological’ aspect emphasizing process
interaction at particular sites» (p. 218).
My reply. From which point is geography related to the
horizontal aspect? Processes that operate in a geographical environment span
the entire domain. Basins of rivers and lakes, glacier forelands are not
landscape units; they are units of the daytime surface structure, the pattern
of which is the basis for the emergence of the corresponding patterns. «Thus, physical
geographers see the concept of landscape not only as a means of organizing
knowledge of Earth-surface forms and patterns but also as a framework for
understanding the interacting processes and mechanisms that bring about change» (p. 218). What is
important that is, so to
speak, undergrounds the landscape.
The citation. «The debate around environmentalism in general and determinism in
particular was a major catalyst and influenced the development of cultural
geography by provoking a reaction» (p. 219).
My reply. I believe that if there is cultural geography,
then there must be non-cultural geography.
The citation. «The debate that Sauer[12]
initiated was strongly based upon the material expressions of human occupancy
of landscape, which is still the predominant interpretation of the cultural
landscape amongst not only physical geographers but also ecologists and
archaeologists. Sauer wrote of ‘a critical system which embraces the
phenomenology of landscape’ (Leighly, 1963: 320)[13], a
term that meant to him the facts and objects that made up the physical and
visible landscape»
(p. 219).
My reply. O.C. Sauer is the legend of geography. But I
cannot agree with the thesis about "human occupancy of landscape".
You can talk about the human occupancy of the day surface, which is manifested
in its anthropization and, accordingly, changes its image. Accordingly, the
landscape cannot be cultural (transformed), only the day surface can be.
10
LANDSCAPE AS FORM, PROCESS AND MEANING
Richard Huggett and Chris Perkins
DEVELOPMENT OF LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS
My reply. It is a pleasure to read such a comprehensive
overview of the history of landscape views.
LANDSCAPE FORM AND SCALE
The citation. «Landscape form may be interpreted physically or culturally» (p. 227).
My reply. With respect to the physical identification or
interpretation of the phenomenon of landscape, I can doubt that the landscape
is a mental image of the terrain, which is built on its perception in various
ways, it is a pattern that manifests in our minds. With regard to cultural
identification, the question arises: what is culturally identified?
Ecological approaches to form
«Patterns are spatial
arrangements of land units» (p. 227).
My reply. I am sceptical of landscape ecology because
the representatives of this direction do not interpret the term
"landscape" correctly. I also, without being English-speaking, cannot
clearly represent the meaning of the term "pattern" - for me, it is a
holistic image of something which manifests itself spontaneously in the mind
and is not broken down into parts. Therefore, in the above sentence, I would put
in the first place the word "arrangements" (as organization)
including the path of such an organization. Incidentally, this also applies to
the terrain I define as the organization of a height field or morphologic
surface shape.
Patches, corridors and matrixes
My
vision of landscape ecology is borne out by the following text: «Landscape ecologists
traditionally confine their studies to areas up to about 10,000 km2,
which is roughly the size of Cheshire in England. Larger areas than that they
call regions. The current mainstay of landscape ecology, the
patch–corridor–matrix model, has had extraordinary success in explaining many
features of species patterns and dynamics. The three landscape elements are
themselves made of individual plants (trees, shrubs, herbs), small buildings,
roads, fences, small water bodies, and the like. They include natural and
human-made landscape components, so the patch–corridor–matrix model integrates
the biological and physical aspects of landscapes. Patches are fairly uniform
(homogeneous) areas that differ from their surroundings – woods, fields, parks,
ponds, rock outcrops, houses, gardens, and so forth. Corridors are strips of
land that differ from the land to either side, and are inextricably linked with
patches» (p. 227).
My reply. First, I don't think there should be area
restrictions. If we talk about, for example, the tundra landscape
(generalized), it corresponds to a terrain with a much larger area. On the
other hand, there are ‘micro-landscapes’ that correspond to structures that are
in small areas, and they are also terrains. Secondly, regions have a very different
meaning: they are territories within which certain functional regimes and
corresponding structures are formed, but these regimes come to the fore. So the
terms "landscape" and "region" are not in the same semantic
"plane". Third, the so-called "current basis" of landscape
ecology has to do with the structure (morphological and functional) of the day
surface, and the landscape (as a pattern) of such a structure will have an
appropriate appearance - nodes and network. The invention of such a structure,
of course, is not a great achievement. And precisely these morphological units
- patch – corridor – matrix - are not landscapes. I am not a landscape
ecologist, but once I proposed a general model of the country
"Biosphere", as well as based on such a basis.
Networks
My reply. This is well known.
Mosaics and regions
The citation. «Landscape elements (patches, corridors and matrixes) combine to
form landscape mosaics, within which there is a range of landscape structures.
These structures are distinct spatial clusters of ecosystems or land uses or
both. Although patches, corridors and matrixes combine in sundry ways to create
landscape mosaics, six fundamental types of landscape have been identified:
large-patch landscapes, small-patch landscapes, dendritic landscapes,
rectilinear landscapes, chequerboard landscapes and interdigitated landscapes» (p. 228).
My reply. Patches, corridors and matrixes are not
elements of the landscape; they are elements of the surface morphology! As for
the size of the landscapes, it looks completely incorrect: the landscape, being
an image, has no dimensions. It should be about the size of the respective
terrain to which these landscapes fit.
Cultural approaches to form
……………………………….
LANDSCAPE PROCESS: CHANGE AND DYNAMISM
IN RELATION TO DIFFERENT SCALES AND
THEMES OF ANALYSIS
The
following looks rather strange: «Landform and landscape elements and regions are linked by flows
of energy and materials, seeds, spores and individuals» (p. 230). Firstly, not landforms «linked by flows of
energy and materials, seeds, spores and individuals» but certain formations that have one form or
another, and more true is not a form but a figure. Let's turn to
"WikipediA": A landform is
a natural or artificial feature of the solid surface of the Earth or
other planetary body. Landforms together make up a given terrain, and their arrangement in the landscape is
known as topography[14]. Secondly, landscapes do not consist of elements, nor do they
exchange streams of matter, energy and something else.
The citation. «The spatial structures and circulations in a landscape involve,
and are created by, natural and cultural forces. Landscape dynamics should be a
highly eligible topic on which human and physical geographers could collaborate» (p. 230).
My reply. I'm sorry, but nothing is circulating in the
landscape, and speaking of dynamics, it is not the landscapes but the daytime
surface structures within the respective terrain.
READING THE LANDSCAPE
Not
the landscapes are read, but the morphological structures of the day surface!
Landscape as ‘machine and system’:
progress and reason
Landscape
cannot be a machine and a system, progress and reason!
Landscape as ‘palimpsest’
The
landscape is not a palimpsest, it is a structure of the day surface that
contains traces of the processes of the past, that is, their
"record".
Landscape as ‘taste and value’
……………………………….
Landscape as ‘way of seeing’
My reply. This is a very important conclusion of Dennis
Cosgrove!
Landscape as ‘social process’
My reply. In any case, landscape is not a process.
Landscape as ‘text’
My reply. The text is the structure of the day surface,
not the landscape, it is the general meaning of what is "written" on
the day surface.
Landscape as ‘identity’
My reply. You can talk about individual perception
of the terrain, resulting in the uniqueness of each landscape, but this means
that none of us will ever know about the features of such an individualized
landscape.
Landscape as ‘performance and movement’
My reply. I don't think so!
Meta-narratives
…………………………………
CONCLUSION
The citation. «To save and manage the world we must
collaborate and share scientific knowledge» (p. 235).
My reply. I do not think that we can manage the world,
our task is to learn to manage ourselves, our activities!
The citation. «Geographers are likely to continue to seek to read both the
production and consumption of landscapes» (p. 235).
My reply. That sounds weird: can't talk about production
and consumption of landscapes.
11
LANDSCAPE AND CULTURE
Lesley Head
INTRODUCTION
I
will answer yes to what the author wrote. I graduated from Kharkiv University
in 1971 from the
Department of Physical Geography and my diploma was simply
"Geography". For many years, I did not understand what economic,
socio-economic geographers were doing. In the 1980s, I began to consider the
interaction of society and nature and also became interested in the landscape,
because it was not clear to me what Soviet geography was writing about this
phenomenon. In the 1990s I came to the conclusion that the object of geography
research should be the geographical environment as a whole. And this medium has
passed the path of evolution from abiotic to biotized (the biosphere), and then
to the anthropized (anthroposphere). The main actors are gradually agreed with
each other, the result is a nesting organization. In this view, there is no
separation between "physical" and "human" geography,
because the geographer must regard the geographical environment as a coherent
entity.
The
author writes: «The
starting point used here is Carl Sauer’s cultural landscape» (p. 240). In the
course of formation of scientific views the terminology changes. Yes, the
concept of "cultural landscape" was introduced at one time, but I
posed the question that then a landscape also can be uncultured. It seems to me
the "cultural landscape" should be understood as ennobled or
cultivated, better yet, anthropized. But are such changes always positive? So
it all depends on what we mean by culture. The question is: if culture (as a
chosen mode of behaviour) leads to environmental transformation, then can this
concept be applied to a biota which activity also leads to corresponding changes in the
abiotic environment? I believe this may be the case.
THE SAUERIAN CULTURAL LANDSCAPE:
WHAT DID IT NATURALIZE?
………………………………………
UNSETTLING THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE
Human
The
author raises very important questions. As regards the understanding of
culture, culturologists should express themselves here, although geographers
should not remain aloof because they are dealing with society. It's interesting
to see culture as Anderson and Gale do - "a dynamic mix of symbols, beliefs, languages
and practices that people create, not a fixed thing or entity governing humans"[15]
(p. 243). There is no doubt that different cultures are formed under different
conditions. That is why I focus on defining culture as the chosen (selection)
mode of behaviour of groups of people, as the organization of selected acts of
behaviour.
The citation. «The critique of Sauerian approaches has broadened the subject
matter of cultural geography far beyond the physical expression of culture in
the landscape» (p. 243).
My reply. Physical expression of culture in the
landscape cannot be, it takes place in the structure of the day surface, which
simply leads to a change in its image: it is already a different landscape.
The citation. «For these and other reasons, the term cultural landscape seems
to carry too much baggage, and it has virtually fallen out of the human
geography lexicon»
(p. 244).
My reply. It was supposed to happen!
Physical
My reply. This is a very good review!
CULTURES WITH AND WITHOUT NATURE
The citation. «The second main thread that I highlighted in
the introduction starts with the ontological separation of nature and space in
human geography. This separation has been as influential in the way
culture/landscape interactions have been discussed as has the physical/human
divide» (p. 246).
My reply. I think the mistake of geographers is that
they separate the natural (in the English-speaking tradition, the physical) and
the human, forgetting that the Human is a product of Nature, it is selected and
localized quality. Therefore, there are some problems and, apparently, the need
for a division of geography into two branches. I think it must be assumed that
everything that humanity doesn’t go beyond the limits allowed by Nature. And M.
Fitzsimmons right, writing that
«Consider the
proposition that Nature as we know it was invented in the differentiation of
city and countryside, in the differentiation of mental and manual labor, and in
the abstraction of contemporary culture and consciousness from the necessary
productive social work of material life. (Fitzsimmons, 1989: 108)[16]» (p. 246), and further:
«Urban-economic
geography took Space as its unique object of analysis; but it was Space devoid
of nature» (p. 246).
RECOMBINING PHYSICAL AND HUMAN
Cultural landscape as a land management category
My reply. I have already spoken about the combination of
human and natural principles. I think it only applies to those who still
perceive them as being detached, in the real world they have never been apart,
and the concept of the cultural landscape cannot be used as a basis for
connection.
Rereading the forest
…………………………….
RECONSTITUTION AND RELATIONALITY
It
is very interesting: «The pathway I sketch out here may look something like Murdoch’s
(1997b) geography of heterogeneous associations. It may involve ‘a relation of
connection without a “specious unity”’ (Massey, 1999b: 275, quoting Deleuze,
1995). This is important in allowing us to take on the big questions that are
demanded of us, without pretending that we can understand the whole. Rather, we
can be more precise about which spaces and times our evidence relates to, and
which not. It is no accident that most of our examples of people even
attempting big picture research are in prehistoric or non-Western contexts,
where a more limited data set permits the illusion of being able to get a
handle on the system as a whole. In this respect, Fairhead and Leach’s work is
important in specifying which windows of visibility different types of evidence
relate to …» (p. 250).
My position. We are used to seeing the individual, and not
seeing the whole, just trying to build his image. That is why geography is
delayed in its formation.
Scale and the concept of space–time
It
is very interesting: «for time genuinely to be held open, space could be imagined as
the sphere of the existence of multiplicity, of the possibility of the
existence of difference. Such a space is the sphere in which distinct stories
coexist, meet up, affect each other, come into conflict or cooperate. This
space is not static, not a cross-section through time; it is disrupted, active
and generative. It is not a closed system; it is constantly, as space–time,
being made» (p. 251).
My reply. The discussion of space and time is far from
over. But in my opinion, the best definition of space and time was given by
Gottfried Leibniz. I believe that ideas about space and time are possible
because there are processes in the environment that create heterogeneity, and
these processes are multifaceted. Therefore, space and time are both relative
and non-static. So events are not to be seen in space and time, but thanks to
events, the actions of processes, we are able to form abstractions of space and
time.
Focus on both materiality and representation
……………………………………..
Beyond ‘human impacts’
My reply. At the end of the section, the author
expresses very important thoughts regarding the problems in geography. I advise
all geographers to get acquainted with this useful material.
Part VI
APPLIED GEOGRAPHY
Contributing to real-world problem solving
INTRODUCTION
David T. Herbert and John A. Matthews
I
cannot disagree with what the authors write. I cannot disagree with what the
authors write. At the same time, I cannot support their view on cartography,
the products of which are merely a means of doing some research. The problem of
using geography for applied purposes has been and remains very complex. In my
opinion, this is explained by the enormous complexity of the object of study of
geography - the geographical environment. We do not have the ability to
formulate laws as is the case in physics, chemistry, and engineering. But we
can take advantage of the common achievements that are, for example, in
organizational theory. If an understanding of how organization theory,
catastrophe theory, phases transition theory, etc. can be brought to bear on
geographic formations, I think, geography can become an applied discipline.
The citation. «Research might be concerned with the key concepts that underlie
applied geography. These include those explored by Smith (1977) in the
geography of welfare, by Harvey (1973) in his essays on social justice or by
Cooke and Doornkamp (1990) with reference to environmental management» (p. 261).
My reply. I do not think that the examples of research
provided by the authors are correct. Geography is not relevant to these issues.
Regarding environmental management, I would like to emphasize once again that
we can only talk about managing our own activities. Somewhat surprising are the
authors' statements such as: «Human geographers became acutely aware of the massive problems
of poverty, deprivation, racial inequality and gender disadvantage …» (p. 262). This problem
is not geographic in nature.
12
NATURAL HAZARDS ON AN UNQUIET EARTH
David E. Alexander
INTRODUCTION
……………………………….
WHAT IS A NATURAL HAZARD?
……………………………….
ACADEMIC ANTECEDENTS
The citation. «To a certain extent in these works the synthesis of physical and
human geography occurred right from the earliest days of scientific geography» (p. 269).
My reply. I think so. Geography was initially formed as
a holistic discipline, and subsequently, a disconnect emerged that was
artificial and the result of a misunderstanding of the features that
distinguished the domain of geography. By the way, the name "resource
geography" is wrong.
APPLIED PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY
…………………………..
APPLIED HUMAN GEOGRAPHY
……………………………
BRIDGING THE GAP
…………………………….
CONCLUSION
13
URBANIZATION, DEVELOPMENT AND THE
ENVIRONMENT IN AN UNEQUAL WORLD
Ian Douglas and Alan G. Gilbert
THE WORLD’S URBAN POOR
………………………………..
POVERTY, INEQUALITY AND URBANIZATION
My reply. But demographic issues are irrelevant to
geography!
Defining poverty
My reply. It has nothing to do with geography!
Quantifying the number of people living in
poverty
My reply. It has nothing to do with geography!
The widening gap between rich and poor
My reply. It has nothing to do with geography!
URBAN GROWTH, POVERTY AND AGGRAVATED
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
My reply. It has nothing to do with geography! Urbanization
is undoubtedly a process that geographers must consider, as it is a relatively
new form of organization of the geographical environment. Unfortunately, I
don't see it in this work.
………………………………
………………………………
INTEGRATING STUDIES OF URBAN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS: GEOGRAPHICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS
……………………………….
CONCLUSION
……………………………….
14
CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND HERITAGE
Michael E. Meadows and Maano F. Ramutsindela
TOWARDS HOLISTIC CONCEPTS OF
CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND HERITAGE
These
are very important statements: «The quest to unify a divided Geography has been less than
successful for reasons that contributors to this volume have already advanced.
Nonetheless, ongoing attempts to bridge the gap between human and physical
geography promise to reclaim the high ground of the discipline. As in the past,
the challenge at hand is to establish the foundation on which the unity of the
discipline should be built. The tendency has been to offer a critique of the
human–nature distinctions. In this chapter, we propose a move beyond that
critique and suggest the deployment of concepts that require the application of
our knowledge of the ‘physical’ and ‘human’ worlds. To this end, we employ
concepts of conservation, preservation and heritage as avenues for integrating
geographical knowledge in practice» (p. 305).
My reply. The failure of the combination of physical and
human geography is explained by the fact that supporters of each of these areas
want to remain original. And if within the realm of physical geography we
really had serious achievements (though there were questions in this sphere),
then the so-called human geography was engaged in everything that got into the
economy, production, politics, demography, cultural studies, education, etc. It
was natural: being artificially created, this direction swelled, but now it
blows away because everything created artificially, having reached its climax,
is destroyed. Each geographical study must begin with an abiotic basis, then
considers the
impact of the biota and, finally, embarks on the transformations caused by
human activity. This will be a true geographical study. And so-called human
geographers just ignored (and do so now) the first two levels.
The citation. «The chapter begins by analysing the concepts of conservation and
preservation in the context of society–nature relations. Generally,
conservation is viewed mainly in the context of the so-called ‘natural’
environment (e.g. conservation of biodiversity) and preservation mainly in the
context of the constructed environment, be it urban or rural. In light of this,
and against the backdrop of physical and human geographical approaches, we
employ the concept of heritage as a dynamic concept that has a bearing on the
‘natural environment’ while, at the same time, encapsulating cultural factors» (p. 305).
My reply. I think that within the geographical study of
the problem of "conservation" should not consider the issue, not in
the context of relations between nature and society, but to take the environment
as a whole and determine its condition under the condition of the presence of
the main actors - Nature and Man. Therefore, at one time I proposed a way out
of the crisis, which was a geographical environment - the compression of the
anthropic domain, reducing the area occupied, primarily, agricultural
production through the introduction of new technologies. And not to talk about
the built environment (whether urban or rural), it is a transformed
environment, and this transformation was unmanageable, the task now is to look
at the problem from a different perspective: not the environment for man, but
man and the environment as one. Then the division between society and Nature
will disappear.
DICHOTOMIES AND INTERSECTIONS
…………………………………………….
PRESERVATIONIST APPROACHES AND THE
HUMAN–PHYSICAL BINARIES
PRESERVATIONIST APPROACHES AND THE
HUMAN–PHYSICAL BINARIES
The
thesis of preservation had long to be abandoned. The concept of the Biosphere
Country should be put at the forefront, based on the creation of a global
spatial and functional structure, which should ensure the sustainable
functioning of the biosphere as a leading actor of the geographical
environment, and society should adapt to this structure. Then there is no need
to talk about protection and preservation. And this issue must be dealt with
quite harshly. All the rest are empty chats that will lead to nothing. Look
what is being done in the Amazon, around the Baikal, in the Ukrainian Polissya,
not to mention huge plowing areas! The modern man cannot be stopped in the
desire to enrich himself by destroying biogeocenoses. The creation of national
parks and reserves does not solve this problem, because these are separate
territories separated from others. And this task is geographic in its complexity.
MYTHS AND REALITIES OF THE
AFRICAN ‘EDEN’
…………………………………….
PORTRAIT OF A NATIONAL PARK: THE KRUGER
NATIONAL PARK OF SOUTH AFRICA
………………………………………
HERITAGE AS A SITE OF INTERSECTIONS
………………………………………
AN INCLUSIVE HERITAGE
………………………………………
CONCLUSION
………………………………………
Part VII
BROADER FRAMEWORKS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
INTRODUCTION
David T. Herbert and John A. Matthews
The citation. «The final two contributions to this text are set in a wider
context than any preceding section. They address the idea that there are
broader frameworks, perhaps involving recent change, in which both theory and
practice in Geography can be considered. For these two contributions, the task
in this introduction is to identify their particular roles in the continuing
process of evolution of the discipline and their place in the search for unity» (p. 321).
My reply. t is very important that the authors present
geography not as frozen ground, but as an area of evolving science. But I do
not think that in order to find a path to unity, we should expand the
framework, we must find a common basis and abandon the traditional division
into branches of geography. I fully agree that the key issue is the key
paradigms. But I do not think the B.L.Turner[17] is right about such paradigms. It is a
competition between spatial-horological identity, on the one hand, and
human-environment identity, on the other, although these paradigms have played
an important role in finding the basis for unity. I think that unity is
achieved not because of the competition of these paradigms, but in the
understanding that the division of geography was caused by the rapid
development of society in the time of industrialization. And the real paradigm
that returns geography to integrity is the organization of the geographical
environment.
The citation. «Human geography
remains a broad church that contains as many disparities and divergences in
approaches and concepts as are found across its ‘disciplinary boundary’.
Natural and social science are similarly broad churches and their breadth
should be sufficient to accommodate a future Geography» (p. 322). Here is what the authors write: «Human geography
remains a broad church that contains as many disparities and divergences in
approaches and concepts as are found across its ‘disciplinary boundary’.
Natural and social science are similarly broad churches and their breadth
should be sufficient to accommodate a future Geography» (p. 322).
My reply. Thus, it is said that the representatives of
the so-called "human geography" are confused and misleading the
scientific community. Thus, it is said that the representatives of the
so-called "human geography" are confused and misleading the
scientific community. The spread of geography that Turner writes about is not a
positive thing, it just makes the "body" of geography less
concentrated.
The citation. «The broad framework in
which theory in Geography rests may well be at a crossroads. A discipline that
develops beneath the umbrella of science will find it increasingly difficult to
identify with the current ongoing thrusts towards postmodernism and critical
theory» (p. 322), onwards: «For Bonnett (2003)[18],
the low public profile of academic Geography and its decoupling from both
popular and school Geography have become widespread concerns. There are clear
signs that Geography needs to identify with and focus on its core functions» (p. 323).
My reply. In these statements, we highlight the authors'
real concern about the future of geography. But most of those involved in
geography today do not embrace it, believing that they will have enough for
their lives and you may not notice critical remarks. They are very wrong. With
regard to school geography, this is a very difficult problem today. It is far
removed from the ideas that today mark the path to future geography. As for the
time-space issue the authors write about, I have already noted my vision and
will return to it when discussing Chapter 15.
And
this is important: «The
policy strand in this section also has precedents in this text. Geographers
have a distinguished record of involvements both in public policy and in the
production of evidence-based research. Both these contributions have been less
to the forefront in the recent past, particularly perhaps in human geography. Yet
neglect of these dimensions to the discipline would be a mistake» (p. 323).
My reply. There are geographers who have even introduced
political geography. But this is a common fabrication. There can be no
political geography. Political science exists to address political issues, and
that is enough. You should not go into other domains, you need to understand
your own. Another thing is getting geographers involved in political
initiatives.
15
SPACE, TIME AND SCIENCE
Individuals, emergence and geographies of space
and place
Keith Richards, Michael Bithell
and Michael Bravo
CONCEPTS OF SPACE AND TIME
This
is an extremely important text because it demonstrates how deeply the terms
"space" and "time" sit in the minds of researchers who
continue to search and discuss the place of what is not: «There have been recent
attempts to reassess the nature and role of space and time in Geography (for
example, Raper and Livingstone, 1995; Massey, 1999). These highlight the fact
that, despite the apparent centrality of ‘space’ to the geographical
imagination (and indeed, project), there are various interpretations amongst
geographers of the meaning of ‘space’ and its relationship to ‘time’. There
have been arguments for a distinction between space and time, implying that
there is something qualitatively and conceptually different about these
dimensions of existence, with space imposing a static representation, and time
imparting dynamism. In spite of objections to the ‘physics envy’ it implies,
the discussion has been attracted to Einstein’s relativistic conception (‘the
curvature of space–time’), in preference to a Newtonian view. This preference
in part arises because, in a postmodern view of space–time, the relativistic
reading appears to destabilize the rigidity of the classical formulation. For
physical geographers, this diversity is often puzzling, because theirfocus is
commonly on underlying mechanisms which vary across space, and cause various
processes of change over time. One of the fundamental criticisms of the Davisian
model of landscape evolution was that it implied that the passage of time (in
the cycle of erosion) was interpreted as a mechanism in its own right, when
change in the landscape arises because the action of various processes over
time brings about this change. A similar argument can be made about space, and
space–time can be seen simply as a frame of reference within which mechanisms
become processes that cause change in various phenomena or structures. This may
seem a simplistic view of space–time, but the purpose of this chapter is to
show that such a classical physical concept of space and time provides a rich
source for interpreting the world as normally experienced, generally without
the need to invoke circumstances that require us to move at or near the speed
of light!» (p. 327 - 328).
My reply. I do not know where the authors took the
obvious centrality of "space" in geographical imagination? Maybe
someone thinks so, but not all. It is written that the discussion was drawn
to Einstein's relativistic concept ("distortion of space - time"),
although this is a very abstract theory. In fact, there is a distorted
environment, and space and time are just parameters that allow this environment
to be represented by decomposing it into spatial and temporal components. As a
consequence, its integrity, that is determined
by the organization (it is worth mentioning the evolution of computer
technology), is lost, very interesting is the feature of the Davis model, from which
"it follows
that the passage of time (in the erosion cycle) is interpreted as a mechanism
in itself, when the change of landscape arises through the action of different
processes over time that changes." Yes,
if you forget about time, the process-driven change comes to the fore: time
disappears. I completely agree that this can be done with space - just set it
aside, then the process will come to the fore. It becomes clear that not
processes are determined by space-time, but, conversely, the existence of
processes in the environment allows you to create an idea of space and time.
And
on: «‘Space’ can be
conceived as an expression of areal extent, leading to the requirement for an
‘exploration of space’; it can also be thought of as a form of areal carrying
capacity – as in ‘we need more space’. There are several related factors or
concepts, such as distance, density, place (being a location in space, or the
character of that location) and, that particularly geographical spatial entity,
region. The distinction between space and time is muddied by the fact that
space can sometimes be employed as a unit of time – a journey across a physical
space might take place ‘in the space of an hour’. There are also less stable,
less formal definitions. Space is a phenomenon that might be considered to be
socially constituted – certainly our concepts of distance have changed as the
efficiencies of transport and communication have increased, and as a result we
now occupy more space, both physically and mentally (but, simultaneously and
paradoxically, also less space as at least some of us experience
globalization). There is also the question of the phenomenon referred to in the
social sciences as ‘spatiality’, whose definition is elusive, but which seems
less about intrinsic properties of space than it is about the human experience
of space, and the effects of this on human behaviour. Indeed, this seems to
reflect the notion of space being the frame over which social and psychological
processes act, with those processes affecting, and being affected by, human
behaviour. If space is socially constructed, there is no reason to deny the
simultaneous existence of both ‘space’ as an independent frame of reference,
and ‘spatiality’ as a subjective experience which is a surrogate for effects
whose impact on humans varies with distance and its perception (cf. Hacking,
1999).» (p. 328 - 329).
My reply. Extremely interesting thoughts! But I do not
think that "space" can be considered as the length of the area,
especially in the sense of carrying capacity - as in 'we need more space',
because it depends on the way of organization (this is well manifested in the
production sphere). As for relative factors or concepts, such as distance,
density, place and, that particular geographical spatial entity, region, then
distance is not the same as space (but where did the time go?),
"Density" is determined by the nature of the interaction, "place
"is a topology, and the region is not a spatial entity but an
organizational entity that has its domain among others. Therefore, it is necessary
to depart from the tradition based on images of space and time, although it is
difficult - they are too deeply seated in the minds of people.
Dimensionality
This
material is interesting, but let's not forget that dimension does not exist but
a priori, we chose three-dimensional space and four-dimensional space-time,
because such a dimension is the simplest and most convenient.
Euler and Lagrange
…………………………………
FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE–TIME
………………………………….
Figure
15.2: Interesting scheme. But for me, instead of "Relief" there
should be "Surface Morphology".
SYSTEM BEHAVIOUR IN PHASE SPACE
This
material is very important for geographers.
LOCATION, PLACE AND REGION
The citation. «…in human geography
‘space’ is itself sometimes viewed almost as a process in itself. … It means
that ‘space’ is here being treated as synonymous with ‘region’, and ‘regions’
are continually being redefined, at various scales, either because the
character of places changes, or because the value placed on different variables
or properties as measures of the nature and character of a place change» (p. 341).
My reply. I see confusion here. The image of space is
generated by processes that operate at different scale levels, in one way or
another, organizing the environment, resulting in it becoming heterogeneous,
but only in such an environment can the concept of "space" be
developed. So space cannot be a process in itself.
AGENTS IN SPACES
This
material is very useful for geographers.
CONCLUSION
……………………………….
16
GEOGRAPHY AND PUBLIC POLICY
A political turn
Brian Robson and Elizabeth Shove
INTRODUCTION
Such
questions are important, but this is more about organizing geography than
science.
Part VIII
GENERAL CONCLUSION
17
UNITY IN GEOGRAPHY
Prospects for the discipline
John A. Matthews and David T. Herbert
In
my opinion, the statements of Abler et al. contains a view from the past when
it was believed that humanity should use the resources of the planet. This is a
false view: humanity must reach a level of cultural development when the
natural environment is seen not as a resource base, but as a complement to man.
Human society must go by way of coherence with the Biosphere as one of the
leading actors in the geographical environment. This significantly changes the
emphasis in geographical studies.
DISUNITY WITHIN GEOGRAPHY
The citation. «Geography is more dynamic than it has ever been, but the
discipline is commonly perceived as lacking unity. The widening gap between the
physical and human subdisciplines since the mid-twentieth century, in terms of
ideology and methodology …. Coherence and identity has been weakened by the
many divergent pathways taken by geographers. There has been an explosive
growth of specialities … and a drift towards other disciplines, such as environmental
science and sociology. Divergence within Geography is therefore occurring to
the extent that some consider that human and physical geography are ‘splitting
apart’ (Thrift, 2002: 295); …» (p. 369).
My reply. It really took place. It came to the geography
of dental services, the geography of weddings, and now gene geography and other
options. This is evidence that for a long time geography did not have clearly
defined limitations and clear perceptions of its field of study. Now, this is
the erosion of understanding: it is the organization of the geographical
environment in various forms - from abiotic variants to biotized and
anthropized. But that doesn't mean throwing away what was done before was a
great experience. As for centrifugal and centripetal forces affecting the
contemporary discipline, this is the normal path of development of all complex
entities. But now we must work on combining all areas into a single discipline
based on the concept of organizing the geographical environment as a whole.
GEOGRAPHY AS A DISCIPLINE
The
authors have clearly shown what scientific discipline is.
They
cite Haggett's scheme (Figure 17.1)[19]
- Geography within the constellation of disciplines, which I cannot agree with.
I will focus only on the main points. Undoubtedly, geography has contacts with
other scientific fields, but it cannot affect its structure, as shown in the
diagram. First, there are scientific disciplines, and there are research
methods ("Statistics, probability," "Quantitative methods,"
etc.), and these are different things. Second, Haggett identifies "EARTH
SCIENCES GROUP" - "Quaternary studies", "Climatology",
"Geomorphology", but does not include "Biogeography", which
is related to Biology, although it is not a biological discipline - it is a purely
geographical discipline (not environmental) exploring the organization of a
biotized environment. Climatology and Meteorology should be combined into
Atmology (atmospheric science). Geomorphology is also a geographical
discipline. Further, Haggett lists a number of disciplines that are artificial
- "Population geography", "Political geography",
"Economic geography". The scheme has twice encountered "Spatial
organization", although it is unclear what it is. I will not dwell on
other issues. What is important is that in such an embodiment, geography looks
like a collective saltine. I also cannot agree with the authors regarding «a
distinctive combination of physical and human subject matter with the theories
and methodology necessary for effective research into the complexities of the
Earth's surface» (p. 373). If we consider the whole geographic environment as
an object of geography, there is no need for differentiation of our science.
REASONS FOR PROMOTING UNITY
The citation. «If geographers are to be effective in the development of
knowledge and its applications, they have to continue to make a contribution
that no others can make, or to contribute substantially and exceptionally to
major debates. It is difficult to see how Geographers can make a sustained
contribution of this type without it being founded on the unifying themes» (p. 373).
My reply. I totally agree with that. Therefore, in the
first place, we should reject the superfluous thing that has been invented in
the past decades (and this is, above all, a limitation of specialization), and
look for ways of exploring forms of organization of geographical entities as
unities of different scales.
COMPETING BASES FOR UNITY
The citation. «The subject matter of Geography – the surface of the Earth – involves
a complex phenomenon that allows a discipline of almost limitless scope.
Tangible and intangible, biophysical and human aspects of the geoecosphere –
landforms, water, vegetation and animal life, soils, climates, populations,
settlements, societies, cultures, economies, policies, ideas – are investigated
both separately and in terms of their interactions; over space and through
time; at local to global scales; and at various depths and levels of
explanation or understanding of underlying processes. Our heritage and the
fields of interest of other disciplines tell us, and logic dictates, that
geographers must occupy only a subset of all possible aspects of the surface of
the Earth. Any subset that attempts to specify those aspects of the Earth’s surface
created by nature and modified by human action – Geography’s ‘abiding and
distinctive objects of study’ (Abler et al., 1992: 2) – is, however, itself too
broad to provide an unambiguous basis for unity. Places, regions and landscapes
perhaps come closest to defining geographical objects of study but the
complexity of these ‘objects’, and the various ways they can be constructed,
hinder the development of agreed definitions» (p. 375).
My reply. No, the surface of the Earth is not the
subject matter of Geography! This is a geographical environment, better - a
geographically organized environment, that is, a heterogeneous one, which is
characterized by complex dynamics, since there are three main actors in the
interaction - abiota, biota and anthropota, and each of them is also complex.
And the surface of the Earth, or rather, the day surface, is the display on
which complex dynamics write text using surface morphological characters. The
overall meaning of this text is perceived as landscape. «Tangible and intangible,
biophysical and human aspects of the geoecosphere – landforms, water,
vegetation and animal life, soils, climates, populations, settlements,
societies, cultures, economies, policies, ideas – are investigated both
separately and in terms of their interactions; over space and through time; at
local to global scales; and at various depths and levels of explanation or
understanding of underlying processes» (p. 375) are not the subject of research by geographers, but
geographers may use the results of research obtained by specialists in other
scientific fields, but geographers may use research findings from other
scientific backgrounds to help answer questions.
The citation. «The essence of Geography has, therefore, to be sought in its key
concepts – such as space, place and environment – as they relate to and link
selected aspects of the Earth’s surface …» (p. 376).
My reply. No, the essence of Geography is the
organization of a heterogeneous dynamic environment in which entities that are
inherently geographical are formed and disintegrate.
The citation. «Because it is not possible to define a single, simple conceptual
focus, Geography has always been regarded as a discipline of synthesis but this
involves more than merely using the concepts and theories from other
disciplines» (p. 376).
My reply. No, to define a single, simple conceptual
focus Geography can be defined, it is an organization based on communication,
interaction of actors. And this is the basis that restrains the centrifugal
forces within the body of geography.
ESSENTIAL CORE COMPONENTS OF GEOGRAPHY
The citation. «A way forward is to identify the smallest number of terms that
reflect the concepts that are essential to the discipline of Geography (Table
17.2). Each of these terms has resonance in the roots of geographical thought
and is an integral part of the history of the discipline. The terms are meant
as labels or representative indicators (rather than literal words) for the
catalysts around which schools of thought have coalesced. This idea bears some
resemblance to, but is different from, previous attempts to define low-order
‘elements’ or ‘primitives’ from which more complex concepts can be built (cf.
Nystuen, 1963; Golledge, 1995)» (p. 377).
My reply. This is a true view of the evolution of
science. Take Soviet-Russian geography, "landscape science". We have
three terms that are used to denote one entity - the geocomplex, geosystem, and
landscape, between which there is no difference. This leads to confusion, but,
being shrouded in tradition, geographers continue to use them. However, they do
not pay attention to the fact that the term "geosystem" should mean
the system image (model) of a certain formation, and the landscape is a pattern
of terrain.
The
authors then discuss the importance of space for geography, considering it as a
major component. It is impossible to agree with this and there is no simplicity
and obviousness here. Space is an abstraction that arises due to the
heterogeneity of the medium and the presence of solids. I think the closest to
understanding space and time is G.W. Leibniz, who put it this way: I have repeatedly
emphasized that I consider space, as well as time, to be something purely
relative: space is the order of existence, and time is the order of sequences.
For space, from the point of view of possibility, denotes the order of
simultaneous things, since they exist together, without touching their specific
way of being. When they see a few things together, and then realize the order
in which things are in relation to each other. To refute the opinion of those
who consider space to be a substance or at least some kind of absolute essence,
I have some evidence ... But if space is nothing but this order or relation,
and if it is nothing without bodies, as soon as the opportunity to give them a
certain position, it is these two states - the initial and the reversed - that
do not differ from each other in anything. Their difference is contained only
in our chimerical assumption of the reality of space in itself. Therefore, space can
not only be a key, but also a component in general, and geography cannot be
described as a "discipline of distance", as J.W. Watson[20]
thought. And the dynamic environment in the heap with our memory allows us to
form such an abstraction as "time". As for Table 17.2 - Essential
components of the core of Geography and their qualifying dimensions (p. 379), I
would leave only "environment" and "process" though they
are also widely used. I cannot agree with the so-called
"spatial-chorological approach" - this approach is applied in all-natural sciences and social sciences. The concept of "place" I
discussed above. It is not purely geographical term and its meaning indicates
that it is related to the topology. The place does not reflect "individual
and group identity" or "biophysical environmental differences",
but the differences that exist in the environment allow us to form ideas about
certain entities (not just geographical ones) and their positions with respect
to other entities, and these will be places.
The
following statement is very strange: «Region is an expression of place, as is landscape» (p. 380). Regions
cover a specific territory, and as they are manifested on different scales,
therefore, they have a place to consider when considering their topological
dimension. And the landscape takes place only in the human mind, because it is
an image of the terrain, so the place is characterized not by the landscape,
but by the terrain.
Now
let's consider the medium. You can interpret it either as an environment or as
a distributed material entity of which we ourselves are. This is an attractive
option for me - this is exactly what I
mean. So when we say "geographical environment", it means that it can
be in different states, including geographically organized one. In this sense,
the term "environment" corresponds to Humboldt's vision - as a term
that reflects the holistic vision, and protecting the environment means
protecting moms from themselves. The division into humanity and the environment
as something external to it disappears, and we get truly integrity.
I
will refer to "map" as "as the fourth of the essential
components", it is not. This is simply one of the options for data capture
and handling.
QUALIFYING DIMENSIONS
The citation. «Physical and human geographers trace changes over time, study
the dynamics of landscape or peoples, examine flows of water, immigrants,
energy or ideas as part of their normal practice» (p. 381).
My reply. Somewhat surprisingly, geographers view "the dynamics of
landscape or peoples, examine flows of water, immigrants, energy or ideas as
part of their normal practice". Landscapes (and these are terrain images) change abruptly
when the relevant structure of the day surface accumulates critical changes),
we notice the change of people from time to time, i.e. also discreetly, the flows of
water, immigrants, energy are irrelevant to geography, especially to ideas. As
for "time", this is a common scientific practice.
The citation. «The third qualifying dimension is openness. Its corollary, the
concept of boundedness, is commonly used in Geography to demarcate territories,
including geographical units such as climatic regions, drainage basins,
neighbourhoods, spheres of influence and ecological communities» (p. 382).
My reply. But this is also the case in all scientific
fields that describe the world. But climate, neighbourhoods and ecological
communities are irrelevant to geography.
The citation. «Scale is the fourth qualifying dimension. Geography is concerned
with varying scales – from local to global – and absolute space remains
significant …» (p. 382).
My reply. You can agree that "scale" is
important in geography, but it is not relevant to the essence of those entities
that study geography, which are forms of organization of the geographical
environment. I can't understand what demographics may have and what «population
geography» is. These questions are related to a separate scientific area
"Demography"! Such records cause significant damage to geography.
‘ONLY CONNECT’: MAINTAINING LINKS TO THE CORE
I
will not comment on the entire text of this section, as a review of these
issues have been made above. I will stop at Figure 17.2 - Integrated Geography,
physical and human geography, and geographical specializations in relation to
core and periphery of the disciplinary field of Geography (p. 384).
So
what has happened? Initially, single geography was divided into physical and
human, then other, smaller directions began to emerge, which their
representatives tried to give legitimate status, and now we see an attempt to
combine all this "happiness" into some unified geography by searching
for the core. But such an association looks just as artificial.
ALTERNATIVE FUTURES
The citation. «Several alternative future directions can be
envisaged for Geography, of which three are:
•
‘Anything goes’ scenario
•
‘Subdisciplinary dominance’ scenario
•
‘Expanded core’ scenario» (p. 385).
My reply. I think these "scenarios" are
misleading. Geographers should strive to get rid of everything artificial that
has been invented in the past decades and to take as their basis the unique
feature of the geography domain that ensures its true unity. And this is a
study of forms of organization of the geographical environment based on co-adaptation
of the main actors - abiots, biota and anthropota.
CONCLUSION
My reply. Everything I could write about “Conclusion”, I
have already written above.
MY FINAL CHORD
Now,
let's try to answer the question: holistic Geography is it one that integrates
artificial directions – Unified
Geography, or one based on an understanding of the existence of a specific
domain that defines the sole purpose of the study – General Geography? I think that General Geography should be central
to that section of Geography that contains the basic principles on which
research should be conducted. And this, first of all, is that the object of the
study of Geography is the geographical environment, its forms of organization
as a result of the complex interaction of the main actors - abiots, biota and
anthropota. As a result, we have an evolutionary sequence in the form of an
abiotic geo-environment (it is formed by the interaction of litho-matter, water
and air), the biosphere (is the result of the development of the biota and its
impact on the abiotic environment), and the anthroposphere (which arises in the
course of human evolution). Each successive level of organization is embedded
in the previous ones, covers a smaller domain and is characterized by more
complex dynamics and the whole movement is covered by a single process - the geo-process.
All geographical entities are invited to put the concept of
"geoholon" or "geoorg" in line. The first focuses on the
integrity of formations, the second - on its organizational essence. Thus, the
main aspect becomes organizational, and leading concepts involved in the
reflection of entities are "organization", "information"
and "information machine", "communication",
"integrity", "coherence". This puts Geography at the
forefront in solving a number of global problems. This vision requires
fundamentally another education for geographers. As the geo-process has led to
the emergence of three major levels of organization of the geo-environment, the
structure of geography must also have three main divisions - geomorphology,
biogeography and anthropogeography, each of which may have different specific
directions. For example, in the structure of Geomorphology can be distinguished
fluvial, aeolian, glacial and karst geomorphology etc., in the structure of
Biogeography - biogeography of anaerobic geoholons, biogeography of aerobic
geocholons, as well as higher organisms, etc., in the structure of
Anthropogeography - the organization of hunter-gatherer geoholons,
agro-geography, techno-geography, urban geography, region geography,
noo-geography and other variants. Paleogeography along with Quaternary geology/geography should be a separate area.
Its task is to reproduce the regimes of past times and the ways of evolution of
the geographical environment. Such differentiation requires widespread
discussion, but, above all, it must reflect the course of development of forms
of organization of geographical entities. Although geography is considered to
be one of the oldest scientific fields, in fact, we are just beginning to create
it. This "lag" is explained by the fact that it has an extremely
complex object of study.
Oleksa
Kovalyov
[1] The authors cite the following publication: Haggett P.
(1990) The Geographer’s Art, Oxford: Blackwell.
[3] The authors refer to the following Turner’s work: Turner B.L., II (2002) ‘Contested
identities: human–environment Geography and disciplinary implications in a
restructuring academy’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92:
52–74.
[4] The authors cite the following publication: Milton, K.
(1993) ‘Environmentalism and anthropology’, in K. Milton (ed.) Environmentalism
– The View from Anthropology, London: Routledge, 1–17.
Milton, K. (1996) Environmentalism and Cultural
Theory, London: Routledge.
[5] The authors refer to the following work: Whittlesey,
D. (1954) ‘The regional concept and the regional method’, in P.E. James and
C.F. Jones (eds) American Geography: Inventory and Prospect, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press, 19–68.
[6] The authors refer to the following work: Vidal de la
Blache, P. (1926) Principles of Human Geography, London: Constable.
[7] The authors refer to the following work: Hartshorne,
R. (1939) ‘The nature of Geography: a critical survey of current thought in the
light of the past’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 29: 173–658.
[8] The authors refer to the following work: Sack, R.D.
(2001) ‘The geographic problematic: empirical issues’, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift,
55: 107–116.
[9] The authors refer to the following work: Tuan, Y.F.
(1976) ‘Humanistic geography’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
66: 266–276.
[10] This scheme raises a number of questions, including
the existence of historical geography. I think that there is a historical
aspect in geography, but there is no historical geography, it is fiction.
[11] The
authors refer to the following work: Cosgrove, D. (1999) Mappings, London:
Reaktion - https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=OOlaOUnr3-YC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru#v=onepage&q&f=false.
[12] The
authors refer to the following work: Sauer, C. (1925) ‘The morphology of
landscape’, University of California Publications in Geography, 2: 19–54.
[13] The
authors refer to the following work: Leighly, J. (ed.) (1963) Land and Life: A
Selection of the Writings of Carl Ortwin Sauer, Berkeley: University of
California Press.
[15] The
authors refer to the following work: Anderson, K. and Gale, F. (1992)
‘Introduction’, in K. Anderson and F. Gale (eds) Inventing Places: Studies in
Cultural Geography, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire, 1–14.
[16] The
authors refer to the following work: Fitzsimmons, M. (1989) ‘The matter of
nature’, Antipode, 21: 106–120.
[17] The
authors refer to the following work: Turner, B.L. (2002) ‘Contested identities:
human–environment geography and disciplinary implications in a restructuring
academy’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92: 52–74.
[18] The authors refer to the
following work: Bonnett, A. (2003) ‘Geography as the world discipline:
connecting popular and academic geographical limitations’, Area, 35:55–63.
[19] The
authors refer to the following work: Haggett, P. (2001) Geography: A Global
Synthesis, Harlow: Prentice Hall.
[20] The
authors refer to the following work: Watson, J.W. (1955) ‘Geography: a
discipline in distance’, Scottish Geographical Magazine, 71: 1–13.
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар