Although the concluding chapter (XII) provides a summary of the positive conclusions reached in the text study, experience has demonstrated the need for a preliminary abstract to serve as a guide to readers interested in some, but not all, of the problems discussed.
Introduction
| I. | (A) This study was undertaken, because American geographers, though given to frequent discussions of the nature and scope of their field have been unfamiliar with the past discussions and more serious studies of the problems in question, particularly the studies in the foreign literature. (B) Lack of understanding of the consistent characteristics of the field during its modern development as a discipline has led to dissatisfaction and recurrent attempts to reform. (C) In place of presenting a personal view of what geography ought to be, or what one might desire it to be, the problem is conceived of as a research problem, to examine the field as scholars have worked in it and conceived it [Section II] and thereby to determine what geography is [Section IV] and what are its characteristics and qualifications as a branch of knowledge [Section XI]. (Note the fuller statement of purpose on pages 31-32.) Certain proposals for change or for emphasis of certain concepts that have recently been urged among American geographers but have long been studied by our European colleagues, are examined and tested. [Sections V-X]. Since it was desirable to give full consideration to ideas seriously urged by competent geographers, these discussions are necessarily lengthy and detailed. Some readers may wish to omit those sections, totalling nearly one third of the total text, that arrive at negative conclusions. These are Sections III, part A of V, VII, IX excepting part F, and parts C and E of X. |
| II. | Although geography has its roots in Classical Antiquity, its development as a modern discipline crystallized in Europe, and primarily in Germany, during the period 1750 to 1900. The examination of the historical development of concepts concerning geography, and substantive work in it leads to the following conclusions: (1) Geography studies the areas of the earth according to their causally related differences, in other words, the areal differentiation of the earth. (2) With few exceptions geographers have recognized the need for two different methods of approach - the systematic studies concentrated on areal differences of specific elements over the whole earth, or major parts of it, and regional studies of the complete geography of specific areas. (3) A different form of "dualism," the division between physical (in the sense of natural) geography and human geography became a problem during the mid-nineteenth century, but was largely overcome in the latter part of the period. (4) Special emphasis on the study of land forms in the actual research work of geographers has firmly established gtiomorphology (or physiography) as a part of the field in Germany and perhaps also in America and other countries. (5) The concept of unity or Ganzheit of the earth, conceived even as an organism, though very important in the early development of the subject has almost completely dropped out. (6) On the other hand, the similar concept of a specific region as a unit in itself, a "whole" or an "organism," though effectively criticized in the early nineteenth century, has re-emerged in Germany in recent decades and been transplated and vigorously supported by a number of students. (7) The related problem of the concept of the "natural region," though critically attacked early in the nineteenth century, remains as a current problem today. |
| III. | At various times in the past certain geographers, or groups of geographers, have conceived of the field in quite different terms from those found to represent the main lines of development of the field. Since these deviations from the course of historical development have some representation in recent thought among geographers, the history of the concept is studied in each case to determine the reasons that led to its being discarded. |
| These are: (A.) The attempt to make geography an "exact" science, or an "essentially natural" science by the arbitrary elimination of those kinds of phenomena not regarded as capable of study by "scientific" methods; (B.) the definition of geography as the science of the planet earth, rather than of the earth surface; (C.) the definition of geography as the-study of relationships between the natural environment and man, or the adjustment of human activities to the natural environment; (D.) the definition of geography as the study of distributions on the earth surface. | |
| IV. | A. The concept of geography is the study of tne areal differentiation of the earth surface is justified in common sense by the well-known fact that things are different in different areas of the world and that these variations are somehow causally related to each other. There is a constant need, both in intellectual thought and for practical purposes, to know and understand what these differences are and how they are related, in order to understand the character of different areas. |
| B. The logical position of such a field in relation to other fields of knowledge has been expounded in much the same terms by Immanuel Kant, Humboldt, and Hettner. In contrast to the systematic sciences that study particular kinds of phenomena, wherever and whenever found, two other groups of studies are necessary to interpret the complexes of phenomena as found associated together in terms of space and of time. The historical sciences study the association in segments of time. Astronomy is concerned with the association of phenomena.in celestial space, geography in the space of the earth surface. | |
| C. The nature of geography is best understood in comparison with history; the character of geographic spaces,.regions, is best understood in comparison with historical units or periods. | |
| V. | A. The concept of "landscape," as based on the German term of double meaning Landschaft, has led inevitably to lack of clear thinking on a number of major problems in the field. In particular it is unsound and unnecessary to attempt to define the field of geography in terms of this ambiguous concept. |
| B. The normal connotation of the English word "landscape" can be of value in geography if the term is defined clearly to mean the external, visible, (or touchable) surface of the earth. This surface is formed by the outer surfaces, those in immediate contact with the atmosphere, of vegetation, bare earth, snow, ice, or water bodies or the features made by man. Minor penetrations of the atmosphere into this surface are confusing only in theory: for practical purposes they are readily ignored. | |
| C. The terms "natural landscape" and "cultural landscape" are not properly used to Indicate separate components of a total landscape. At any one time there is only one landscape and only in areas untouched by man can it properly be called "natural." In place of the use of these terms for a wide variety of different concepts that need to be carefully distinguished, the following solutions are suggested: (1) For the sum of all the natural factors in an area, the term "natural environment"is well-established and clearly understood. (2) "Natural landscape" should be used only to indicate the original landscape of an area as it existed before the entry of man, because of past corruption of the term, clarity may require the redundant phrase "original natural landscape," or that may be avoided by using the term "primeval landscape." (3) The concept of the theoretical landscape that would now exist in an inhabited area if that area had never been touched by man is not a concept frequently needed and therefore had best be spelled out in full if used at all. (4) The landscape of areas of primitive development, prior to the entry of civilized man, is not a natural landscape, since even primitive peoples may cause notable alterations, but may be called a "primitive landscape." (5) Likewise the general landscapes of such primitive areas, as well as the patches of uncontrolled areas in the midst of well-developed lands may be called it wild landscapes" in contrast to the "cultivated" or "tamed" landscapes of fields, farmsteads, roads and cities. | |
| VI. | The distinction between history and geography - like any other division of the sciences - is in conflict with reality. Phenomena are actually associated together both in respect to time and space. The separation can be justified only in terms of the limits of the human intellect in examining reality. In each field many topics can be studied adequately only if the methods of the other field are utilized. |
| A. The use of the geographic approach in historical studies, in particular the attempt to determine the significance to history of specific geographic features is logically a part of history - whether pursued by historian or geographers. | |
| B. Adequate interpretation of many of the individual features of a region may require consideration of past conditions, that have led to the situation under examination. Geography focuses its attention on things as they are in any cross-section of time, considering developments for the purpose of interpretation rather than because of concern for the processes themselves. | |
| C. Historical geography is properly the geography of any past period, that period considers as though it were present. In comparative historical geography, the geographies of successive periods in the same area, are studied to bring out the differences at successive times. | |
| VII. | Because of the multiplicity of-heterogenous phenomena that are associated in areas, geographers concerned with the scientific development of the field have long been concerned over the problem of selection of data that should be included in their studies. Beginning at the turn of the century, a small number of European geographers have maintained that geography is properly limited to material features, both natural and cultural, excluding thereby the non-material.cultural features (frequently expressed as the limitation to "visible features" or to "features perceptible by the senses)." This thesis has recently been vigorously urged, or stated as a settled principle, by a considerable number of American geographers. Consequently it is subjected to exhaustive examination before being dismissed as illogical, historically inconsistent, disruptive, and impractical [see Summary on page 235 f ]. |
| VIII. | A. If geography is considered as the study of the areal differentiation of the world, the logical basis for selection of data to be considered is to select those that contribute significantly, both in themselves and in their causal relations to other variables, to the total complex of areal differentiation. |
| B. The essential criteria therefore, as expressed by Hettner and accepted by a large body of German geographers are: (1) the feature concerned varies from place to place; (2)the variations form a system, or systems, in which there is spatial association of the phenomena in terms of their location in reference to each other forming an areal expression; and (3) there is a causal connection between the variations of the feature or element and those of other elements, and their different phenomena are united at one place. | |
| C. The criteria are applied to specific cases, by way of illustration. | |
| D. Any body of data that fulfills these criteria can be presented on a map that will show significant comparisons with maps of other elements. Cartographic presentation is the most distinctive technique in geographic work. As a rule of thumb, therefore, a simple test of the geographic quality of any study is whether it can be studied fundamentally by maps. | |
| IX. | A-E. Whenever regional geography has been vigorously studied by geographers, disagreements have developed over the nature of the areal units into which they divide the world. In earlier periods, and again in this century, various students have claimed that the areal units whether called regions, natural regions, geographic regions, Landschaften, or landscapes - represent individual concrete objects, or Wholes, or even organisms that can be studied like any other individual objects. The world therefore consists of a mosaic of these individual units and can be studied in terms of the relations of each unit, as a whole, to the others. Since this concept, in one form or another, has entered also into the American literature, including textbooks, its claims for acceptance are considered in full detail before rejecting it in all its manifestations. The region is simply a more or less convenient, because more or less intelligently delimited, arbitrary division of the earth surface necessary for regional study. |
| F. Certain areal units however do conform to the terms listed. A farmer's field or a city block is a distinct individual unit. A farm, or a factory, or even a city is in many respects properly considered to be a Whole. Finally, the work of man in creating the cultural landscape does produce a mosaic, though one that is far from perfect. | |
| G. The emphasis on regions as distinct objects, as though complete each in itself, has apparently led to neglect of one of the most fundamental of geographic factors - the significance of location of phenomena on the earth surface in relation to each other. | |
| X. | A. The conclusion that regions are not definite concrete objects but merely arbitrary divisions of the earth surface made by the student does not cast out the problem of dividing the world, or any large part of it, into regions nor reduce to unimportance the basis for such a division. It is important to find the most intelligent and useful method, or methods, of divising the world into regions. |
| B. There are two principal types of systems of regional division, both of utility in different ways. A realistic system of specific regions is based on consideration of all the factors involved, including relative location in reference to land and sea. A comparative system of generic regions considers only the internal characteristics of the areas without respect to relative location; strictly speaking, it does not establish regions but simply areas of particular types. | |
| C. In either kind of system the term "natural regions" is misleading. Strict analysis shows that such regions are actually regions based on a combination of certain natural factors determined according to their importance to men of a particular culture and technology. | |
| D. The analysis of one system of specific regions discloses a number of major difficulties inherent in the problem and discusses the arbitrary solutions that must be made. The thesis that such a division must be thoroughly genetic in foundation is analyzed and rejected as impractical. | |
| E. Various attempts to construct comparative systems of generic regions based on combinations of natural elements are analyzed and found to be unsatisfactory. In most cases they are little more than systems of climatic or vegetation types. | |
| F.-G. Greater success is to be expected from systems of generic regions based on the actual syntheses of cultural features constructed by man. Two such systems, one based on the present landscape cover of the world, the other on the synthesis of features involved in land use, are analyzed in detail with conclusions concerning their advantages and limitations. | |
| H. A full summary of the chapter is provided in the concluding section H. [Pages 361-365]. | |
| XI. | A. The purpose of this concluding chapter is to determine the characteristics of geography, as found in the preceeding chapters, in comparison with other branches of that type of knowledge that for convenience is called science. |
| B. Certain characteristics of geography result from the fact that it is a subject that penetrates into both the natural sciences and the social sciences and partakes of characteristics of both groups. More significant is the conclusion that geography, like history, does not have a distinctive group of phenomena at the center of its interest, as do the systematic sciences, but has the distinutive function of studying the integration of heterogenous phenomena in sections of space, the areas of the earth surface. Geography, like history, examines reality as it is, naively looking at things as they are actually arranged. | |
| C. The character of geography is to be tested in terms of its adherence to the ideals of certainty, exactness, universality and system. Geography seeks to make its knowledge as certain and accurate as possible. Its attainments, in comparison with other sciences, are not to be measured merely in terms of the degree of success in reaching these ideals, but also in terms of the relative difficulties in the tasks undertaken. | |
| D. Geography seeks for universality of its knowledge by the development of a sound system of generic concepts and the construction thereby of general principles of interrelationships. There remains however, as in any-branch of science, a large number of significant phenomena that can be studied only in terms of the unique. In geography a relatively large proportion of the work, though not as large as that in history, is necessarily concerned with unique cases. | |
| In systematic geography, however, there is increasing emphasis on the development of generic concepts and general principles, though the multiplicity of factors commonly involved in a geographic problem makes extremely difficult the application of general principles or laws. The attempt to establish generic conoppts of areas, as units, with the hope of finding general principles or laws in regional geography, is found to be a pursuit of what is logically impossible since the area is not an obj ect or a phenomenon. Generic concepts of systematic geography however are used in regional geography, and generic descriptions of types of areas are of assistance in reaching a partial understanding of the character of specific areas. | |
| E. Knowledge in geography is organized into systems in two different ways. Specialized branches of the field divide the phenomena of areal differentiation into major groups each consisting of closely related phenomena; these include the various parts of physical geography - such as climatology, the geography of landforms, soil geography, etc.; and the several branches of human or cultural geogra,phy - economic geography, political geography, and social geography. Knowledge in all these branches is also organized in terms of systematic geography and regional geography. | |
| F. This division of geography into these two forms of organization is compared with the situation in other integrating sciences, namely astronomy, historical geology and history. | |
| G. In analyzing the character of systematic geography particular attention is paid to the following topics: The problem of establishing clear distinction between the purposes of systematic geography on the one hand and of the related systematic sciences on the other; special techniques; the study of element-complexes; the capacity for prediction; and the comprehensive range of natural and cultural phenomena studied in systematic geography. | |
| H. Three major steps are involved in a study in regional geography. In order to comprehend the actual interrelation of phenomena in specific places it is necessary to consider small subdivisions within each of which the local variations of the various factors are arbitrarily ignored. The second step is to relate the unit areas to each other to discover the structural and functional formation of the larger region. Finally it is necessary to study the arrangement of the regions to each other and the interrelations of phenomena in one region to those in another. The several arbitrary devices that must be used in this process present problems that are discussed in detail. | |
| Other specific questions discussed include: the problem of transition areas; the kind of knowledge to be included in a regional study; "the genesis of an area;" scientific laws or principles concerning regions; comparative regional geography; and the question of the size of region appropriate for intensive study in particular, the value of studies in "microgeography." | |
| I. Systematic and regional geography do not represent separate branches of the field, distinct in substance, but rather two different approaches that are mutually dependent on each other and must be combined in specific studies. | |
| The detailed conclusions in this chapter will be found summarized in the final chapter, pages 464-468. | |
| XII. | The summary of conclusions omits all discussions that arrived at negative conclusions, but recapitulates the positive conclusions reached in the previous chapters concerning the nature of geography. |