Three 20th Century "Revolutions" in American Geography

This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]On: 14 November 2014, At: 08:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Urban GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurb20

Three 20th Century "Revolutions" inAmerican GeographyHoward L. Gauthier a & Edward J. Taaffe aa The Ohio State UniversityPublished online: 16 May 2013.

To cite this article: Howard L. Gauthier & Edward J. Taaffe (2002) Three 20th Century "Revolutions"in American Geography, Urban Geography, 23:6, 503-527, DOI: 10.2747/0272-3638.23.6.503

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.23.6.503

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rurb20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.2747/0272-3638.23.6.503

http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.23.6.503

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

503

Urban Geography, 2002, 23, 6, pp. 503–527.Copyright © 2002 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

THREE 20TH CENTURY “REVOLUTIONS” IN AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY1

Howard L. Gauthier and Edward J. Taaffe2

Department of GeographyThe Ohio State University

Abstract: During the 20th century, the evolution of American geography went through threemajor periods of change. The first period of change, which began in the 1920s and extendedthrough the 1930s, initially consisted of a move away from environmental determinism toward“man-land” relations; then a move from man-land relations to an emphasis on regional study, orareal differentiation. The second change period, from the early 1950s to the late 1960s, saw ashift away from areal differentiation toward spatial analysis, involving quantitative methods andthe application of theory. The third period began in the early 1970s and has extended beyond thel980s. The period was marked by a stress on social theory and a strong rejection of the work inspatial analysis. The three periods of change are compared in terms of six selected characteris-tics: (1) type of change; (2) pace of change; (3) intensity of debate accompanying change; (4)operational characteristics of change; (5) impact of change; and (6) disciplinary and societalcontext of change. An overview of the periods of change suggests three possible interpretations:monotonicity, periodicity, and continuity. [Key words: geographic thought, twentieth centurygeography, environmental determinism, man-land relations, areal differentiation, spatial analy-sis, social theory.]

American geography has changed greatly over the past 100 years. Geography as stud-ied and taught in American universities at the beginning of the 21st century is quite dif-ferent from that studied and taught at the beginning of the 20th century—and both in turnare different from that of the decades following and preceding World War II. In this paperwe will put forward some broad and tentative generalizations about the ways in whichAmerican geography has changed during that 100-year period.

In the United States, the discipline of geography has not evolved in a consistentlysmooth and gradual fashion, from an emphasis on the views of William Morris Davis, asexpressed in 1906, to today’s emphasis on the competing views of several groups of socialtheorists. At least, we have been unable to detect a clear evolutionary progression fromthe geography practiced at the beginning of the century to that practiced at the end. We dobelieve, however, that three periods of major change in emphasis may be identified. Theseare from: (1) “Man-Land” Relations to Areal Differentiation; (2) Areal Differentiation toSpatial Analysis; and (3) Spatial Analysis to Social Theory. In this article we use the term

1 The editors thank lead author Howard L. Gauthier for preparing the final draft of this article, published post-humously for co-author Edward J. Taaffe.2 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Howard L. Gauthier, Department of Geogra-phy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210; telephone: 614-451-5632; fax: 614-451-2508; e-mail:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

504 GAUTHIER AND TAAFFE

“man-land,” following Pattison (1966), referring to human-environment relations andinteractions. Our focus will be on the years in each period that highlight the change orshift from one paradigm to another.3 The term “paradigm shift” will be used to refer to thechange from one prominent view of geography to another. These changes may be defini-tional, philosophical or methodological.

We will present some preliminary generalizations as to the characteristics of each bycomparing them in terms of six selected characteristics: (1) type of change, (2) pace ofchange, (3) intensity of debate accompanying change, (4) operational characteristics, (5)impact of the change, and (6) context of the change.

Under “type of change”, we will consider whether the main thrust of the change isdefinitional, methodological or philosophical. For definitional emphasis, we will use Pat-tison’s traditions (1966) as modified by Taaffe (1974): man-land relations, areal differen-tiation, and spatial organization. For methodological emphasis, we will consider therelative importance of such geographical techniques as fieldwork, mapping, statisticalanalysis, and interviewing. Under philosophical emphasis, we will consider the role ofdeterminism, free will, logical positivism, scientific method, phenomenology, and otherperspectives underlying geographic study.

Under “pace of change” we will examine whether the paradigm shift occurred slowlyover an extended period of time or fairly rapidly in a relatively short period. The thirdcharacteristic considers the “intensity of the debate” that accompanied the paradigm shift.There is evidence that all three periods of change were accompanied by vigorous profes-sional and professional disagreements, some of which were personally vitriolic. Thefourth characteristic examines the “operational features of the change.” Often as a partic-ular paradigm evolves, there emerge concepts that seem to encapsulate and epitomize it,and become commonly employed in geographic research. The fifth characteristic is the“impact of the change.” These impacts may be evident in new empirical studies, curricu-lar changes, or the advent of new professional journals. Finally, we will consider the“context of the change.” The shift from one paradigm to another occurs within both dis-ciplinary and societal contexts. The disciplinary context may be internal to geography orexternal to the discipline, involving other fields such as geology or economics. The soci-etal context is a composite of major occurrences that influence the views of geographers,such as major wars, the quest for social justice, environmental concerns.

These are the six characteristics we will use to compare the three periods of majorchange in geography. We will look at each period in turn, present a timeline and a briefchronological description, and then note how each characteristic was evident in thatperiod. Finally, we will consider how the discontinuous pattern of change we have postu-lated compares with other possible patterns such as those based on the perception of:monotonicity, or continuing progress built on the rejection of what are regarded as pasterrors; periodicity in which past paradigms undergo revival; or continuity, whereby“many flowers continue to bloom” alongside the currently favored paradigm.

3 Paradigm has been given many different meanings after Thomas Kuhn’s use of the term in Structure of Scien-tific Revolutions (1962). In Kuhn’s second edition, he noted without comments that some critics felt he hadused the term in 22 different ways.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

“REVOLUTIONS” IN AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY 505

THE FIRST PERIOD OF CHANGE: FROM MAN-LAND RELATIONS TO AREAL DIFFERENTIATION

The first major period of change in the 20th century took place from 1923 to 1939.During this 16-year period, U.S. geographers turned away from an emphasis on man-landrelations as a dominant paradigm to embrace regional studies or areal differentiation asthe new focus of geographical research and education. This paradigm shift was a signifi-cant change from the view of geography earlier in the century.

Before this first major period of change in the 1920s, there was an earlier transitionfrom environmental determinism to man-land relations, as shown in the first timeline(Table 1). In 1906, William Morris Davis, a renowned physiographer at Harvard, gave hispresidential address to the Association of American Geographers, calling upon the pro-fession to move away from its emphasis on descriptive geography and pursue studies thatwere more scientific.4 He proposed geographers should study the importance of cause andeffect in man-land relationships. Davis viewed geography as dealing with the control bythe inorganic environment, both physical and biological, over the human, or organic,environment. The observable patterns of human settlement, as well as related social andeconomic activities, were determined directly by the physical and biological environ-ment. Davis’ influence on the early development of American geography was strong. Hewas an influential member of the Conference on Geography, a group of nine geologists,meteorologists, and teachers of physical geography or natural history who were calledupon by the National Education Association to provide recommendations and guidelines

4 William Morris Davis is widely credited with introducing into American higher education from the Germanuniversities the new geography with its emphasis on the physical earth.

TABLE 1.—TIMELINE FOR THE FIRST “REVOLUTION”: MAN-LAND RELATIONS TO AREAL DIFFERENTIATION

1906 William Morris Davis: An Inductive Study of the Content of Geography

1911 Ellen Churchill Semple: Influences of Geographic Environment

1915 Ellsworth Huntington: Civilization and Climate

1916 Issiah Bowman: The Andes of Southern Peru

1923 Harlan H. Barrows: Geography as Human Ecology

1923 First Geographic Field Conference

1925 Carl O. Sauer: The Morphology of Landscape

1928 Robert S. Platt: A Detail of Regional Geography: Ellison Bay as an Industrial Organism

1929 Derwent S. Whittlesey: Sequent Occupance

1933 Vernor C. Finch: Montfort: A Study in Landscape Types in Southwestern Wisconsin

1936 Charles C. Colby: Changing Currents of Geographic Thought in America

1939 Richard Hartshorne: The Nature of Geography

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


on the teaching of geography. Davis’ views on environmental control formed a major partof the Conference’s recommendations.5

During the early decades of the century, these views of the causal relation between thephysical-biological environment and mankind occupied the attention of many Americangeographers, especially those who studied with Davis at Harvard.6 Notable among thisgroup is Ellsworth Huntington, who focused for many years on the controlling effects ofweather and climate on human societies. In 1915, in Civilization and Climate, he arguedthat advanced civilizations could evolve only in regions of stimulating climate and not inregions of monotonous tropical climates. In his studies of the Andes of Peru, Bolivia andnorthern Chile, Isaiah Bowman (1916, 1924) also adhered to the paradigm of geographi-cal study formulated by Davis.

Unquestionably one of the most influential writers of the time was Ellen ChurchillSemple. In her writings, she softened Davis’ rigid environmental “control” to one of“environmental influence.” An eloquent writer, she was deeply influenced by her studiesat Leipzig with Friedrich Ratzel and his view of anthropogeography or geographicalinfluences on the course of history. Her most renowned work, Influences of GeographicEnvironment (1911) provided vivid examples of the many ways in which she felt that thephysical environment influenced society.7 Frequently she stressed how physical factorsled, if not directly then indirectly, to remoteness by limiting human interaction andimpeding movement and accessibility. The persuasiveness of her views was due more tothe quality of her writing than to her empirical work that ignored any examples contradic-tory to her broad generalizations and conclusions. In most of the early studies on thecontrol, or influence, that the physical and biological aspects of the earth exerted overhuman activities, human culture was always regarded to be less significant than the phys-ical environment.

A reaction against environmental determinism became evident in the early-to-mid1920s. Two major works signaled an important shift away from the more extreme viewsof environmental determinism. In 1923, Harlan H. Barrows’ “Geography as Human Ecol-ogy” and, in 1925, Carl Sauer’s seminal monograph, The Morphology of Landscapebroke with the deterministic view that limited, if not denied, the exercise of individualfreewill. Barrows rejected environmental determinism in favor of “human ecology,” laterto be termed “man-land relations,” wherein the interaction of man and the environmentwas regarded as a mutual relationship with causation moving in both directions. Humanfactors could be as important, and sometimes more important, than environmental ones.8

5 The Conference recommended that the specific focus of geography should be on the features of the physicalearth and those physical influences that directly affect mankind. 6 A notable exception was Mark Jefferson who admired Davis but took issue with the concept of determinism.Jefferson believed that geography should focus on “man on earth” and not “the earth on man” (James and Mar-tin, 1981, p. 321).7 “Man is a product of the earth’s surface. This means not merely that he is child of the earth, dust of her dust;but that the earth has mothered him, fed him, set him tasks, directed his thoughts, confronted him with difficul-ties that have strengthened his body and sharpened his wits…” (Influences of Geographic Environment, 1911,p. 1).8 “Human ecology” as a descriptive term was not widely used by geographers in the 1920s and 1930s, in partbecause urban sociologists led by Rupert Vance began using it to describe some aspects of their work. The term“man-land relations” was replaced many years later by “ecology” and “society-environment” study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


The terms “adjustment to the environment” and “environmental factor” were added to thesemantic litany of “control,” “response,” and “influence.” It should be noted, however,that even though environmental determinism was abjured by Barrows, he still felt thatgeographers should focus on the physical environment and search for ways in which itcould be demonstrated that people adjust to it.9

Sauer’s studies of the origins and dispersal of cultural forms placed a greater emphasison the human dimensions of geography than on the physical environment per se. Hisstudies had a powerful influence on what would later be called “The California School.”These studies focused on the dominant role of culture, although they nearly alwaysincluded discussions of significant aspects of the environment. Sauer and his studentsfocused on the role of human intervention in landscape evolution through plant and ani-mal domestication, the use of fire, the diffusion of artifacts and the creation of settle-ments. Their research depended on fieldwork that emphasized the visible features of thelandscape. It did not, however, lead to a paramount concern with areal differentiation.

Beginning in the 1920s, many American geographers moved away from a focus onman-land relationships to a concern with regional studies. In the Midwestern universities,especially Chicago, Michigan and Wisconsin, there was less effort to generalize aboutenvironmental influences and a greater emphasis on classifying and describing the cul-tural, economic and physical features that gave specific identities to geographical regions.With few exceptions, the geographic factors were those that were visible features of thelandscape. Field studies were the principal means by which geographers made theirobservations and developed their classifications, whether the research was in a rural orurban setting. Most of the studies were basically idiographic, or descriptive of a particulargeographical area, rather than nomothetic, or derivative of generalizations or theoriesabout regions.

As shown in the timeline, a particularly significant development in the move towardareal differentiation occurred in the early 1920s, around the time of the Barrows andSauer publications. A group consisting of some of the leading geographers of the dayinitiated an annual series of field conferences.10 They met yearly from 1923 to 1938 dur-ing the spring in the Midwest to explore through fieldwork various empirical approachesto regional study. Many of the meetings were held in the Driftless Area of southwesternWisconsin because it provided the basis for the comparative study of the different effectson agriculture of glaciated versus unglaciated land—a carry-over from the man-landperiod. Many papers were generated from these field camps that went well beyond con-cerns with the influences of glaciation.11 One major outcome was the development of thefractional code for use in fieldwork to prepare land-use maps on which detailed informa-tion could be recorded and analyzed. The Montfort Study (1933), undertaken by VernorC. Finch and his students at the University of Wisconsin, provided an example of theempirical specificity of the work that is generally identified with the field conferences.12

9 The most definitive argument against environmental determinism was published in 1948 by Robert Platt whochose a sociology journal rather than a geographical one as he believed that it was other social scientists whostill viewed geography as a discipline dedicated to the study of environmental influences on human society.10Some of the participants included Charles Colby, Robert Platt, Derwent Whittlesey, Vernor Finch, DarrelDavis, William Haas, Preston James, Richard Hartshorne, Glen Trewartha, and Henry Leppard.11For good examples, see Whittlesey, 1927, pp. 72–78, and 1929, pp. 162–165.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


For some geographers, there seemed to be a feeling it was possible to obtain a clear andbasic understanding of any region, if we could only collect and classify enough factualinformation from land-use maps. Some went so far as to postulate that there might exist aset of true regions that form a discrete mosaic of natural regions waiting to be discovered.

As might be expected from the number of geographers attending these field confer-ences, there were several variations on the basic land-use map theme. One of these wasdeveloped by Robert Platt in 1928 and seemed to foreshadow the next major period ofchange in geography nearly 30 years later. Platt looked beyond an area’s visible landscapeto consider its functional ties or general pattern of flows and linkages to other areas.

In the late 1930s, Richard Hartshorne wrote his seminal book, The Nature of Geogra-phy (1939), in which he relied on the writings of German and American geographers toassess the research directions of the past few decades. He used the term “areal differenti-ation,” introduced by Sauer in 1925, to characterize empirical studies that focused on theaccurate, orderly description and interpretation of areal or regional variation.13 Hart-shorne felt geographers should study any phenomena to the extent and degree that it isassociated with areal variation of significance to man. Areal differentiation became acommon description applied to not only much of the geographic work since the early1920s, but for the following decades. Through the early post World War II years, TheNature of Geography served as the basic text in graduate courses on geographic thought.Contrary to the misinterpretation of his work by some geographers during the next periodof change, Hartshorne’s emphasis was not on regional delimitation. He was not a seekerafter the “true” set of unique regions. Instead his focus was on the integrative aspects ofareal study, involving a wide topical range of phenomena usually associated with separatedisciplines.

Summary Comments

The first period of change dominated geography in America for much of the first halfof the century. It resulted in a significant shift in geographic thought. Initially, the Davisview of environmental control gradually shifted toward the Barrows’ man-land or ecolog-ical view. Between 1923 and 1939, the major paradigm shift took place as the man-landperspective gave way to an emphasis on area studies or areal differentiation. We can sum-marize this first period of change in terms of our six selected characteristics (Table 2).

Type of Change: The type of change was clearly definitional, from man-land to arealdifferentiation. Some philosophical and methodological dimensions were related to thischange, but they were not as pervasive or as fundamental. When environmental determin-ism was a major focus of geographical inquiry, arguments involving determinism versusfreewill were commonplace. Few philosophical concerns were voiced, however, when theman-land view competed with areal differentiation.

12Although the Montfort Study provided much detailed information, the field-mapping required so much timethat Finch concluded that the method was not very useful.13Sauer’s use of the term “areal differentiation” was his paraphrase of Alfred Hettner’s concept of geography as“the knowledge of earth areas as they differ from each other.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Pace of Change: The pace of change was also fairly slow, with the shift from oneparadigm to another occurring gradually over several decades. Throughout the period,many geographers continued to advocate the importance of environmental “influence” or“factors” as important components in the study of man-land relations and the understand-ing of geographical regions.

Intensity of Debate: The intensity of debate over the competing views of geographywas most intense in the reaction against environmental determinism. Barrows, Sauer,Hartshorne and Platt all rejected Davis’ concept of environmental controls in strong andexplicit language. In the 1920s many geographers presented papers at the annual meet-ings that deliberately looked for evidence that refuted the importance of environmentalrelations.

Operational Characteristics: Notable about this period is the fact that there were rela-tively few changes in research methodology. Geographic field techniques were the pre-ferred instruments for observation, classification and inductive generalizations. Graduatestudies required participation in well-organized field camps where young geographerslearned about land-use maps and the fractional code, the process of sequent occupance,and a variety of classifications for recording their environmental, economic and culturalobservations.

Impact of the Change: The impact of the change was clearly reflected in the tendencyfor empirical work to stress the supremacy of cultural-economic factors over physicalfactors in the development of a region. Although the complexity of regions was empha-sized and many types of variables were considered and mapped, generalizations as to therelationships between them were seldom forthcoming. Graduate curricula reflected thechange to areal differentiation particularly in the development of field camps. On the

TABLE 2.—THE THREE “REVOLUTIONS” DEFINED IN TERMS OF THE SIX CHARACTERISTICS OF CHANGE

CriteriaMan-land to areal

differentiationAreal differentiation

to spatial analysisSpatial analysisto social theory

1. Type of change Definitional DefinitionalMethodologicalPhilosophical

PhilosophicalMethodological

2. Pace of change Slow Rapid Rapid

3. Intensity of debate Low High High

4. Operational characteristics Weak Strong Strong

5. Impact Significant Significant Significant

6. Context:

Internal Strong Strong Strong

External Weak Strong Strong

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


other hand, undergraduate and introductory courses, as evident in the textbooks, wereparticularly slow to reflect the paradigm change. Throughout the period, texts most oftenemphasized man-land relations, often combined with some remnants of environmentaldeterminism.

Context of the Change: The disciplinary context of the change was primarily withingeography. Two prominent groups exerted particularly strong influences on geographicthought, the Conference on Geography and the annual field conferences. The Conference,which was dominated by W. M. Davis, championed environmental determinism as thebasis for geographic inquiry. The annual field conferences in the 1920s and 1930s reactedagainst environmental determinism and stressed empirical fieldwork, particularly the useof land-use mapping. The programmatic studies by Barrows and Sauer in the 1920s andby Hartshorne in the late 1930s were strong factors in affecting the changes from deter-minism to man-land relations and areal differentiation.

References made during the period to nongeographic authorities drew mainly fromgeology, history and less frequently from anthropology. References to geology were in partthe logical outcome of graduate curricula that required courses in geology. In additionthere were many combined geography and geology departments in American universities.

The societal context of the change was not especially strong. The participation duringWorld War I of many geographers in detailed country inventories led to a heightenedinterest in regional studies. It also hastened the demise of some of the more sweepinggeneralizations of environmental determinism and made it more apparent that the studyof a region entailed much more than just its relations to the physical environment. How-ever, neither the geographic focus on man-land relations or areal differentiation seemedto be affected by some of the important social changes taking place in the nation. Only afew geographers gave consideration to the impact of important demographic and eco-nomic changes being generated by a growing tide of European immigrants and the move-ment of Americans from the rural countryside to manufacturing jobs in the cities.14

Although there was evidence of an initial interest in urban geography, little attention wasgiven to urban issues in the mainstream journals or in introductory textbooks. It was notuntil 1959 that the first widely used textbook (a reader by Mayer and Kohn, 1959) inurban geography was published.

THE SECOND PERIOD OF CHANGE: FROM AREAL DIFFERENTIATION TO SPATIAL ANALYSIS

The next major period of change in American geography took place between 1953 and1969 with a paradigm shift from areal differentiation to spatial analysis. As shown in thesecond timeline (Table 3) this period extended from the publication of articles by Fred K.Schaefer (1953) and John E. Brush (1953) to the publication of David Harvey’s synthe-sizing book, Explanation in Geography (1969). Prior to this time, however, there hadbeen some evidence of interest in a spatial view in geography. During the areal differen-tiation period there was Robert Platt’s work on functional regions (1928, 1957), espe-

14Notable exceptions are the influential works in economic geography by J. Russell Smith, Industrial and Com-mercial Geography (1913) and Eugene Van cleef, Trade Centers and Trade Routes (1937).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


cially his study of the external linkages of the Ellison Bay Community to other urbancenters. There was also some interest in topical geography as evident in some studies ofcities, manufacturing, and transportation that included many nonvisible aspects of thelandscape. Frequently, however, they provided only a limited recognition of a spatial per-spective.

The effects of World War II were noticeable in several ways. The War increased theinterest of many servicemen in the rest of the world. It was not surprising that a numberof veterans, many who had worked in intelligence and related fields, were attracted tograduate studies in geography.15 The trend toward a greater emphasis on topical studies ingeography was also intensified by the World War II experience. In 1945, Edward Acker-man made a particularly strong appeal for a greater stress on topical work in geography,arguing that the material prepared by geographers for wartime intelligence was weak incontent and of limited usefulness. Its superficiality underscored the ineffectiveness oftraining geographers who specialized in conducting detailed inventories of regions. ToAckerman, it was clear that there was a need to provide more training and research in thetopical, systematic branches of geography. He also contended that more emphasis on sys-tematic studies had the potential to enrich regional studies by leading to more thoughtfuland meaningful interpretations and generalizations. In the same year, Chauncy Harris and

15See Stone, 1979, for an informative review of the impact of World War II on geography.

TABLE 3.—TIMELINE FOR THE SECOND “REVOLUTION”: AREAL DIFFERENTIATION TO SPATIAL ANALYSIS

1953 Fred K. Schaefer: Exceptionalism in Geography: A Methodological Examination

1953 John E. Brush: The Hierarchy of Central Places in Southwestern Wisconsin

1953 Edward L. Ullman: Human Geography and Area Research

1954 Preston James and Clarence Jones, editors: American Geography: Inventory and Prospect

1954 Chauncy D. Harris: The Market as a Factor in the Localization of Industry in the U.S.

1954 Harold McCarty: An Approach to a Theory of Economic Geography

1956 William L. Garrison et al.: The Benefits of Rural Roads to Rural Properties

1958 Brian J. L. Berry and William L. Garrison: Functional Basis of the Central Place Hierarchy

1959 William L. Garrison: Spatial Structure of the Economy.

1959 Richard Hartshorne: Perspective on the Nature of Geography

1960 Walter Isard: Methods in Regional Analysis

1963 Ian Burton: The Quantitative Revolution and Theoretical Geography

1965 Peter Haggett: Locational Analysis in Human Geography

1965 Edward Ackerman: The Science of Geography

1967 Richard J. Chorley and Peter Haggett: Models in Geography

1969 David Harvey: Explanation in Geography

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Edward Ullman in “The Nature of Cities” (1945) provided a preliminary survey of somebasic concepts of Alfred Weber and Walter Christaller whose theories would have a greatimpact on the spatial study of cities and manufacturing locations during the 1950s and1960s.

In 1953, two noteworthy articles appeared that made a strong case for spatial analysis,one a critique of geography as a social science, the other an empirical application of thetheoretical concepts of Walter Christaller. Fred K. Schaefer’s paper “Exceptionalism inGeography,” published posthumously in the Annals, presented a strong and explicit callfor more theory in geography and challenged Hartshorne’s areal differentiation. Schaeferbelieved that as a social science geographic research should explore regularities in spatialpatterns. The definition of geography should not emphasize relatively holistic regionalstudies as advocated by Hartshorne, but rather it should be a science of those factors gov-erning the spatial distribution of certain features on the surface of the earth. It is the spatialarrangement of phenomena, not the phenomena themselves, that Schaefer believedshould be the subject of the geographers’ search for generalizations. Geographic method-ology should be the basis for formulating generalizations that can be stated as hypothesisto be tested against a large number of cases. If the hypotheses can be verified, it should bepossible to formulate geographic theory, and quite possibly scientific laws. He placedparticular emphasis on the work of Weber and Christaller—as had Harris and Ullman.

John Brush (1953) in his paper, “The Hierarchy of Central Places in Southwest Wis-consin,” provided the first empirical application in the United States of Christaller’s cen-tral place theory in his study of a small region in southwestern Wisconsin. The region wasin the same general area as the Montfort study and the spring meetings of many of thefield conferences. Brush’s study provided an interesting transition between areal differen-tiation and spatial analysis perspectives. His paper was drawn from his PhD dissertationin which he devoted the entire first section to a carefully detailed description of the char-acteristics of the urban settlements in his study region. It was in the concluding section ofhis dissertation, which was the basis for his article, where he used many of the conceptsfrom Christaller’s central place theory to develop a set of generalizations regarding thespatial organization and distribution of those urban places.

A year later, in 1954, American Geography: Inventory and Prospect (James and Jones,1954) was published.16 In the lead chapter by Derwent Whittlesey, “The Regional Con-cept,” an attempt was made to provide a definitive approach to the geographic study ofregions. Even in focusing on regional study, however, there were indications of the begin-ning of change in the areal perspective. Whittlesey attempted to incorporate concepts ofthe functional region in his definition of a “nodal” region, while retaining some overtonesof the discrete region. There were even more dramatic indications of an emerging changeto spatial analysis. Spatial considerations were especially strong in the chapters byChauncy Harris on the geography of manufacturing; Harold Mayer on urban geography;and Edward Ullman on transportation geography. A year earlier, Ullman (1953) pub-lished an article in which he argued that “spatial interaction” should be the prime focus

16The publication consisted of the reports of a number of AAG committees that were designed to represent thestate of geography on the 50th anniversary of the Association.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


for geographic study; and in 1954 Harris published his seminal study of market potentialwhich was based on the gravity model.

By the mid-1950s, spatial analysis was being emphasized at a few American universi-ties, notably Iowa and Washington. To some extent the work at Iowa was affected by theviews of Schaefer. Students were encouraged to sit in on Gustav Bergman’s class in thephilosophy of science. Bergman, who was a logical positivist, had a great influence onSchaefer’s thinking and was responsible for the posthumous publication of his paper.17 Astronger influence at Iowa was Harold McCarty (1954) whose background in economicswas evident in his view of theory in economic geography. McCarty (1956) and several ofhis colleagues and students were interested in determining the degree of correspondencebetween two or more geographical patterns. In their view, it was reasonable to expect thateconomic geography should develop a body of generalizations, or theory, to help explainthe location of various economic activities on portions of the earth’s surface. Since thepurpose of theory is to provide explanations, economic geographers should search for thecauses of observed locational patterns, most likely through spatial associations. McCartyand his associates studied a variety of spatial associations, including the location patternsof manufacturing industries, the densities of rural populations, the patterns of intra-urbanland values and the spacing of urban settlements. The methodology of the Iowa geogra-phers, with its focus on the statistical testing of simple hypotheses derived from observa-tions or theoretical deductions, became a widely adopted model in geographic research.

The research of the Iowa group did not represent as much of a break with areal differ-entiation as did some later work. They made frequent use of the term “areal associations”to describe their statistical results, suggesting it was a natural outgrowth of areal differen-tiation. A sharper departure began at the University of Washington where the spatial inter-action perspective advocated by Edward Ullman was given greater impetus in the 1950swith the research of William Garrison. Garrison, who had done postdoctoral work at theUniversity of Pennsylvania, was influenced by the econometricians with whom he inter-acted, and especially by Walter Isard, the founder of the Regional Science Association.Garrison and his graduate students, notably Brian Berry, Richard Morrill, Duane Marble,John Nystuen, and Waldo Tobler, began work on a series of analytical, spatially orientedarticles. In 1956, the first of these, The Benefits of Rural Roads to Rural Properties, waspublished. Their highway impact studies were followed by a series of discussion papersthat employed relatively sophisticated statistical and economic concepts. These papershad a major impact on the spread of the spatial analysis perspective in geography. AtNorthwestern University, Edward Taaffe, together with several graduate students, appliedthe concepts presented in those papers to empirical field studies at the geography depart-ment’s annual field camp—the Montfort area of southwestern Wisconsin. The papers byGarrison, his students, and others were not only influential in America but had an impacton several young British geographers, including Peter Haggett who synthesized much ofthis research in his book, Locational Analysis in Human Geography (1965).

Two other major influences, regional science and Swedish geography, were felt in themiddle- and late- 1950s. Walter Isard had formed the Regional Science Association in

17Bergman was a native of Vienna, Austria, where logical positivism had developed into an important branch ofphilosophy, unlike the United States where it had a minor following.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


1954 with the goal of exploring the common ground between economists, planners, andeconomic geographers. His book, Location and the Space-Economy (1956) had someinfluence on spatial analysis but it was his methods book, Methods in Regional Analysis(1960) that was widely used and had the greater impact. By the late 1950s, papers writtenby Swedish geographers were widely cited by American geographers interested in spatialanalysis. Their analytical use of maps, as in evident in Torsten Hägerstrand’s (1953) dif-fusion studies and Sven Godlund’s (1956) bus hinterland studies, provided impetus to themethodological developments of this period.

There was some reluctance on the part of the editors of the major geographical jour-nals to publish spatially analytical articles, especially those using statistics. It was notuntil 1958 that they were first published, led by Brian Berry and William Garrison’s, “TheFunctional Bases of the Central Place Hierarchy.” In 1959, Richard Hartshorne’s Perspec-tive on The Nature of Geography was published, with its explicit recognition of theimportance of spatial interrelationships.18 Hartshorne also noted that areal differentiationshould not be limited to differences but should also include regional similarities.19 It wasthis growing concern with similarities that would eventually result in greater efforts bygeographers to develop higher levels of generalizations. The same year, Garrison (1959,1960) began publication of “Spatial Structure of the Economy,” a thorough, three-part setof review articles in the Annals, in which he summarized the important methodologicaland conceptual advances of spatial analysis in the 1950s.

Throughout the 1960s, spatial analysis spread widely throughout the profession. Theemphasis on this work spread from Iowa and Washington to Northwestern, Chicago,Michigan, and Ohio State. The diffusion of the analytical methodology was aided by anumber of National Science Foundation (NSF) institutes in quantitative analysis heldfrom 1961 to 1965 at Northwestern and Ohio State. The methodology drew upon a widerange of mathematical models, many derived from economics, the biological sciences,psychology and electrical engineering. In addition to the standard regression and correla-tion models, geographers employed such methods as input-output analysis, linear pro-gramming, and indices of accessibility from graph theory. The emphasis was on theunderlying question of what determines spatial arrangement, with the overarching goal ofexplanation and the development and testing of theory. This was most evident in theempirical work on the spatial pattern of central places, the relationships between house-hold locations and consumer behavior, the impact of highway improvements on land use,the comparison of actual locations to optimal ones, and the evaluation of transport move-ments to minimize cost flows.

Although the term “quantitative revolution” has been used widely to describe thechanges that took place, there were really three major changes: a greater emphasis onspatial approaches; a greater use of quantitative methods; and a greater concern with thedevelopment of theory. The emphasis on spatial approaches came first. In the 1950s, thespatially oriented work at Iowa and Washington added an explicit emphasis on quantita-

18Hartshorne (1959, p. 37) observed, “The distinctive character of geography… is its concern with the inte-grated combination of phenomena as interrelated spatially, interrelated among them at any one place and inter-related across space with those of other areas.” 19Walter Isard made a similar observation at the 1954 meetings of the AAG.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


tive analysis. It was this second change that aroused the most heated debate in the corri-dors and meeting rooms at the annual meetings of the Association of AmericanGeographers. Although quantitative methods had been used before in geography, theyhad been mainly limited to physical geography and cartography. Their widespread use inhuman geography was unprecedented. The third change, its concern with theory, was rel-atively slow to develop. It was only in 1963 that Ian Burton called, perhaps prematurely,for the end to the quantitative revolution and stressed that the time had come to focus ontheory.

The spread of this triple revolution, and all that it implied, was aided by the recognitionand support it received from the scientific community. The National Science Foundationand The Office of Naval Research funded a number of spatial analysis studies. In addi-tion, two major reports on geography were published with the support of the NationalAcademy of Science, The National Science Foundation and the Social Science ResearchCouncil. In 1965, Edward Ackerman chaired a committee that prepared an NAS/NRCreport entitled “The Science of Geography” to chart research priorities for the discipline.A greater focus on spatial analysis and quantitative methodology was central to the com-mittee’s priorities for the advancement of geographic research. Five years later in 1970,another report, “Geography,” was prepared by Edward J. Taaffe as part of the Behavioraland Social Sciences Survey for the National Academy of Science. It presented humangeography as an integral discipline in the social sciences—a discipline that focuses onspatial distributions, interactions, organization and processes, and offers special skills inmapping and data acquisition.

As indicated in the timeline (Table 3), David Harvey’s 1969 book, Explanation inGeography, may be viewed as the culmination of the period of change from areal differ-entiation to spatial analysis. In this thoughtful presentation, Harvey summed up many ofthe ideas advanced since the early 1950s on a new definition of geography, and the impor-tance of scientific inquiry in the discipline. In his preface, he argued that the combinationof quantification and scientific principles opened up a whole new world of thought ingeography for it was now possible to think theoretically and analytically. As was typicalof the period, Harvey was less interested in the philosophy of logical positivism that latercritics would argue underlay the new directions in geographic research and education.

Summary Comments

The second period of change in many ways was a defining point for American geogra-phy. It ushered in major changes in the direction of geographic research and education.These may be summarized by our six characteristics of change (Table 2).

Type of Change: The changes were definitional, methodological and philosophical.The definitional emphasis shifted from regional study to the study of spatial patterns,linkages and interactions. Topical studies in urban, manufacturing, transportation andpopulation geography came into their own. Methodologically, more geographers began toemploy the scientific method as the means of inquiry in spatial analysis. Beginning withinferential statistics, the methodology soon expanded to encompass a wide variety ofmathematical models. Philosophically, the emphasis on the scientific method and modelbuilding meant an emphasis on a more deductive approach of inquiry. A normative formof inquiry had replaced the idiographic focus of areal differentiation. Later, this so-called

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


“quantitative revolution” was viewed retrospectively by many geographers as the applica-tion of logical positivism in geographical research. This philosophical label was notwidely used until it became a common point of reference during the next period of changein the 1970s.20

Pace of Change: The pace of change was both rapid and strong, especially in terms ofquantitative methodology. This was evident in both professional articles and in graduatecurricula. By the late 1960s, statistics courses had become common in virtually all of themajor research departments.

Intensity of Debate: The internal debate accompanying these changes was quiteintense, especially at the AAG annual meetings. At times, the debate led to vituperativeattacks with areal differentiation being described as “mindless inventory,” leading to therebuttal that quantification was little more than “sterile geometry.”

Operational Characteristics: A prominent feature of this period of change was thesearch for geographic theory through the testing of hypothesis. This meant not only theuse of statistics but the adoption of an eclectic bundle of mathematical models, borrowedfrom economics, psychology, biology and even engineering. There was a strong convic-tion that hypothesis testing was a mantra for geographic research.

Impact of the Change: Although physical geography continued to occupy an importantrole in geographical education, this period of change witnessed a strong emphasis onhuman geography as an integral discipline in the social sciences. The emphasis on spatialthemes was now combined with analytical methodology with a clear goal of achievinghigher order generalizations and even theoretical outcomes. The focus on spatial analysisincreased geography’s visibility not only in the social sciences but also in the scientificcommunity in general, as evident in the funding support of the National Science Founda-tion for geographic research.

The Context of Change: Unlike the preceding period of change, the shift from arealdifferentiation to spatial analysis was subject to strong external influences. The change ingeographic thought was consistent with changes taking place in the other social sciences,especially economics. It is not surprising that this period of change witnessed a signifi-cant increase in the citations of research done in economics and statistics. Regionalscientists were also frequently cited, especially Walter Isard who provided manyyoung geographers with important publication outlets through the Regional ScienceAssociation.

The social context was also strong as the early postwar period witnessed a surge ofinterest and public support for major scientific and technological projects. The 1950s wasnot a time of widespread concern with social inequalities or other unaddressed socialissues. Following the Depression of the 1930s and the war effort of the 1940s, publicattention was on expanding economic growth, enhancing productivity and improving thequality of life through the application of science to everyday living. The application ofscientific analysis to economic inquiry had a significant influence on the initial directionsof spatial analysis in geography. It would be late in the 1960s and early 1970s before

20In a retrospective article on spatial analysis, Richard Morrill (1993) noted that he was not at all certain heknew any spatial analysts who considered themselves to be positivists.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


geographers began to question the assumptions underlying some of the directions of theirresearch and to deal more explicitly with societal problems.

THE THIRD PERIOD OF CHANGE:FROM SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO SOCIAL THEORY

In the early 1970s the third period of major change in geography began to emerge and,as indicated in the timeline, it would continue beyond the 1980s (Table 4). By the 1970smany young geographers had openly rejected spatial analysis and had begun to explorealternative theories and disciplinary perspectives. For the remainder of the century, thefocus of geographical inquiry would evolve toward social theory. Many new perspectiveson geography would appear during this period of change. Of these, we have chosen tofocus on four: Marxism, humanism, structuration and critical realism.

Prior to the advent of social theory, there was already a questioning of some of theunderlying assumptions of spatial analysis. This was evident with the advent of behav-ioral geography in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The challenge made by the behavioralgeographers was directed less at the quantitative and spatial aspects of spatial analysisand more at its underlying theory. Behavioral proponents (e.g., Golledge, 1984; Golledgeand Rushton, 1976), reacted against the overdependence in spatial analysis on economicsfor the development of generalizations in urban, transportation, and locational studies.21

They charged that the focus on “economic man” was too limiting an assumption. Whileagreeing that economic constraints are important, they recognized that there are other

TABLE 4.—TIMELINE FOR THE “THIRD REVOLUTION”: SPATIAL ANALYSIS TO SOCIAL THEORY

1973 David Harvey: Social Justice and the City

1974 Peter Gould: Mental Maps

1976 R. Golledge and G. Rushton: Social Choice and Spatial Behavior

1976 Yi-Fu Tuan: Humanistic Geography

1977 Edward Relph: Place and Placelessness

1977 Richard Peet: The Development of Radical Geography in United States

1978 Derek Gregory: Ideology, Science and Human Geography

1979 Neil Smith: Geography, Science and Post-Positivist Modes of Explanation

1979 D. Ley and M. S. Samuels: Humanistic Geography: Prospects and Problems

1983 David Ley: A Social Geography of the City

1983 Alan Pred: Structuration and Place: On the Becoming of Sense of Place and Structure of Feeling

1984 Doreen Massey: Spatial Divisions of Labor: Social Structures and the Geography of Production

1984 Andrew Sayer: Methods in Social Science: A Realist Approach

1986 Andrew Sayer: Realism and Geography

1987 Michael Dear: The Postmodern Challenge: Reconstructing Human Geography

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


factors that influence personal behavior. Social and cultural factors that condition individ-ual and group decisions also had to be taken into account. Rather than looking to econom-ics to understand behavior, the behavioral geographers looked to psychology and startedto explore perceptions, cognitive relations and learning as important factors influencinghow people acted in their geographical environments (Couclesis and Golledge, 1983).Considerable attention was given to developing and understanding mental maps as repre-sentations of how people perceived and behaved within geographical space. As evident inthe work of Peter Gould (1974) and others, there was no objection to the use of mathemat-ical models or statistics in geographical analysis. Rather new analytical methods wereintroduced as offering more effective ways of studying and understanding spatial move-ments and patterns. In reality, behavioral geography may be viewed more as an adaptationof spatial analysis to the philosophical epistemology of phenomenology rather than arejection of logical positivism.

A much sharper break with spatial analysis came with the advent of Marxism andhumanism in geography. The social upheaval of the 1960s, especially the civil rightsmovement and the Vietnam War, led some geographers to question the value of spatialanalysis in providing meaningful insights into the important problems facing society.Increasingly, spatial analysis was viewed as supportive of the status quo rather than offer-ing a strategy for change. Critics saw a tendency to disregard the social constraints placedon spatial patterns and a failure to examine how things might be under different social andeconomic conditions. To some of them, Marxism offered an appealing alternative thatprovided an understanding of social inequalities and a way to investigate its social causesand the possibility of alternative social structures.

Only four years after he wrote Explanation in Geography, David Harvey completelyrejected his earlier views on spatial analysis when, in 1973, he presented a collection ofessays in Social Justice and the City. Presented as an autobiographical view of his ownevolution to an acceptance of Marxism, Harvey challenged prevailing liberal views ofgeographers on issues of economic distribution and social justice in the urban environ-ment. In combination with his earlier paper in Antipode, “Revolutionary and Counter-Revolutionary Theory in Geography and the Problem of Ghetto Formation” (1972), Har-vey’s work provided a strong statement about Marxist explanation in geography andencouraged new directions of inquiry in the discipline. Other geographers, includingRichard Peet (1975, 1977), Neil Smith (1979), Richard Walker (1981) and Doreen Mas-sey (1983, 1984), expanded the Marxist perspective, especially in urban geography andlocation theory. Unlike the spatial analysts, the Marxist geographers argued that method-ology and philosophy were inseparable. Accordingly, much of their work was stronglyphilosophical in advancing the goal of integrating Marxism within geography. Althoughthe work was very antipositivist, it did not reject the formulation of generalizations or thedevelopment of theory. Marxism did, however, replace the neoclassical economic theoryof spatial analysis that was viewed as being counter-revolutionary, as was any theory thatdid not support social change and the movement toward a socialist society. Clear lines ofresearch were laid out, including the study of development and imperialism, the processes

21See Hanson, 1993, for a retrospective on spatial analysis and behavioral geography, and some interestinginsights into the assumptions underlying research in spatial analysis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


of uneven regional development, and theories of the city and urbanization. These studieswere grounded in the precepts of historical materialism, with social life being consideredin its broad relationship to prevailing social conditions.

The effort to integrate Marxism into geography did not go unchallenged. The human-ists reacted to what they regarded as a tendency toward overgeneralization by both thespatial analysts and the Marxist geographers (Duncan and Ley, 1982). They felt that bothhad failed to relate social structure at the macroscale with the reality of life’s events andoutcomes at the microscale. They called on the discipline to explore the social outcomesthat result from the ways in which groups of individuals try to organize their own world.These humanistic geographers turned away from both positivism and Marxism. Yi-FuTuan (1971, 1976, 1977) and Edward Relph (1970, 1976) were among a group of geog-raphers who preferred a phenomenological approach in geographical inquiry by focusingon the psychological, emotional and existentialist attachments that people have for spe-cific places, spaces and environments. While the Marxists were emphasizing social ine-quality the humanists were concerned about social meaning. David Ley (1974), forexample, in his study of the place-people relationships of Black urban residents in theinner city of Philadelphia, focused on the meanings of the social actions of social groupsin their specific social settings.

Unlike the behavioral geographers who had also turned to phenomenology as thephilosophical basis for inquiry, the humanists rejected the theoretical emphasis and ana-lytical models that are characteristic of spatial analysis. Their empirical emphasis was onthe specific rather than the general as they focused on the thoughts and actions of individ-ual groups. With the core of social geography being the linkages between place, groupand lifestyle, humanists saw geographical space as less a subject for analysis and more acontext for geographers to understand the relationship people have to places (Ley, 1983;Smith, 1984).

From the Marxist perspective, the humanists stress only the culture of individuals andgroups and ignore the political and economic constraints on individual and group behav-ior. From the humanist perspective, Marxists focus their social inquiry only on politicaland economic constraints and fail to understand the role of individual or group behavior.These conflicting perspectives led a few geographers to explore the potential of structur-ation theory to reconcile the duality of structure and behavior. They found a theoreticalbasis for this reconciliation in the writings of Anthony Gidden, a sociologist who washighly critical of the social theories of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim (Cloke et al., 1991).He rejected the deterministic focus of structural theories that advocate the primacy ofstructure over behavior but was equally critical of the idea that society can be viewed asthe product of unconstrained human action. According to Gidden (1979, 1984), the dual-ity of structure and behavior requires us to consider the ways by which structure contrib-utes to group behavior and, in turn, the ways by which group behavior influencesstructure.

Examples of Gidden’s influence on social geography are evident in Allan Pred’s(1983, 1984, 1987) application of structuration theory in his study of mercantile capital-ism in Boston and his study of the changing nature of places in Sweden. Derek Gregory(1982) also used time-space concepts in his historical geography of the structure of sociallife in the Yorkshire woolen industry. These studies are clearly antipositivist in both theirperspective and methodology. They focus on specific social structures and behavior that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


are best understood through a composite of individual or group interactions andexchanges of information. They do not deal with discrete events that can be measured forpurposes of analyzing cause and effect relationships between structure and behavior.

Another alternative to positivism is the philosophy of critical realism, especially asinterpreted by Andrew Sayer in his book, Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach(1984). Drawing on the philosophical writings of Roy Bhasker and Rom Harre, Sayerpresented critical realism as an alternative philosophy of science that challenges the con-ventional formulation of causation, fact, and verification. To the realist, spatial analysisfails to differentiate between occurrence and causation (Sayer, 1993). The frequency withwhich something occurs, or is observed to occur, has nothing to do with causality. To therealist, the spatial analysts are wrong is assuming that what is real about the world areempirical observations or facts. In critical realism, facts are socially constructed and notindependent from theory.

The realist’s definition of facts or observations means that any verification based onthe hypothetico-deductive model of the spatial analysts is seriously flawed. The compar-ison of the deductive predictions of a theory with empirical observations cannot reveal thecausality underlying those observations or occurrences. Verification can occur onlythrough the intensive use of case-study research (Cloke et al., 1991).

A good example of the realist’s perspective is provided by Sayer’s (1982) debate withDavid Keeble in which he rejected the most common explanations for the urban to ruralmanufacturing shift in Great Britain. Sayer argued that finding a statistically significantrelationship between a percentage loss in urban manufacturing employment and the num-ber of development grants received by a rural area does not reveal any causality underly-ing this relationship. He found that the studies were seriously flawed because theyassumed the shift in employment from metropolitan centers to small towns and rural areaswas the result of discrete events that can be measured and tested against theoretical pre-dictions.

As Trevor Barnes (1996) has observed, critical realism probably appealed to manygeographers because it avoids many of the weaknesses of positivism and Marxism andoffers an appealing methodology with clearly defined steps of inquiry and maintains aclose linkage between theory and empirical analysis.

Summary Comments

The period of change between the 1970s and the end of the century was sufficientlydiverse to warrant the designation of pluralism. The movement toward social theory tookmany divergent paths. The four we have focused on may be summarized in terms of oursix selected characteristics of change (Table 2).

Type of Change. Throughout this period of change there was a strong emphasis onalternative philosophies to the logical positivism of spatial analysis. To some extent, thisperiod may also be regarded as one of methodological change, especially in its rejectionof the scientific method and quantitative analysis. It was not, however, a period of cleardefinitional change as were the previous two periods. Most of the studies could still beclassified within an ecological or regional or spatial definition of the discipline.

Pace of Change. The pace of change, which was rapid during the previous period ofspatial analysis, was also rapid during this period as new directions in social theory

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


appeared and challenged existing ones at a seemingly accelerative rate. This was mostevident at the national meetings, where the number of sessions devoted to the manydimensions of social theory increased dramatically within relatively short periods of time.

Intensity of Debate. In many ways the debates during this period of change from spa-tial analysis to social theory were as strong as those associated with the earlier changefrom areal differentiation to spatial analysis. On one hand there were the debates involv-ing spatial analysis with many harshly worded critiques and interchanges in the profes-sional journals, as evident in the exchange between Brian Berry (1972) and David Harvey(1972) in Antipode. Without exception, spatial analysis was the bete noire that had to bediscredited. At the same time, there were strong debates among the social theorists them-selves with each new emphasis criticizing the ontology and epistemology of earlier views.

Operational Characteristics. Operationally there was a strong effort to move awayfrom statistical analysis and scientific methodology. There emerged a greater reliance onsurvey research, case studies and qualitative methodologies. In some cases, there was aquestioning of the validity and meaning of generalizations not to mention the role, if any,of theory in geography.

Impact of Change. The impact of social theory has been dramatic and widespreadthroughout American geography, as evident in the outpouring of books and articles in theprofessional journals. In addition, social theory, in one form or another, has become com-monplace in the proceedings of the national meetings of the AAG. In the 1970s and 1980smuch of this effort was more programmatic than empirical. In this respect, the impact wasdifferent from the more empirical research of the first two periods of change. As thechange to social theory continues, however, it is likely we will see more evidence ofimportant empirical work.

Context of Change. Like the preceding period of change, the shift from spatial analysisto social theory was subject to important external influences. The strong linkage to othersocial sciences that had begun earlier continued to strengthen.

The role of outside authorities was significant in this period as it had been during thefocus on spatial analysis. Instead of economists, statisticians and regional scientists, how-ever, geographers now looked to sociologists and social philosophers to anchor theirviews on the philosophical underpinnings of the discipline. The Marxists looked to thesocial theories of Weber and Durkeim, in addition to Marx and Engels. The humanistsdrew upon the phenomenology of Husserl and Alfred Schutz, as well as the writings ofSchiller. The structurationists looked to the theories of Anthony Gidden. The critical real-ists found support for their work in the writings of Roy Bhaskar and Rom Harre.

The pluralism of this period probably meant that internal groups played a more mod-erate role than they had in the periods of change to areal differentiation or spatial analysis.Internally, the discipline was more affected by the work being done by British-trainedgeographers than had been the case during the previous periods of change.

The social context during this period of change was especially strong. In the earlyyears, there was the strong opposition to the war in Vietnam and anger over the socialinjustice being imposed on minorities. Later, there was an awareness of issues involvingwomen in the labor force and discrimination in the labor markets. These concerns wereall part of an acute feeling that geography must be responsive to the social issues beingraised throughout the nation. This meant less concern with broad generalizations andabstract theories and more focus on understanding people and the social and economic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


context in which they lived and organized their lives. Raising social consciousnesswas the hallmark of much of the emphasis on social theory, even though there was con-siderable disagreement on how to study and understand the important issues in humangeography.

CONCLUSIONS

In viewing the three major periods of change over the last 100 years, we may charac-terize them in three principal ways: monotonicity, periodicity, or continuity. Initially, wefelt that many viewed the changes as revolutionary or discontinuous with previous ideas.A broader perspective, however, would characterize this view as monotonic, or “onwardand upward,” a view which regards the new paradigm as clearly representing progress.We have learned from our earlier mistakes and can now turn to cutting-edge researchuncluttered by past errors. At any given time, this has been a widely held position, andthere has been no shortage of geographers adopting it in each of the periods. Davis wasoptimistic about the future discovery of new aspects of environmental control andresponse. Some Hartshorne followers felt the true regions would emerge if we only hadtime to make enough detailed areal differentiation studies and produce enough land-usemaps. Schaefer felt that we were starting to be scientific in our outlook and could moveforward to a bright future of testing hypotheses and deriving new theory. As each newperspective on social theory emerged after the early 1970s, it has had its enthusiasticadherents. In each instance, trendiness has also played a role in reinforcing the movetoward the new paradigms.

As we continued to examine the changes that have taken place during the three peri-ods, we noted some evidence of a cyclical pattern involving shifts between greater gener-alization and greater specificity in geographic research. This general-specific cycle wasevident during the first two periods of change. Davis’ environmental determinism was,itself, a move toward the general as a reaction against the detailed factual inventories of19th century American geography. The move away from environmental determinism toman-land relations was a move toward somewhat less cosmic generalizations, while thesubsequent move to areal differentiation was a move toward considerably more specificwork as exemplified by land-use mapping and the fractional code. The beginning of amove back to more generalizations came with the functional region and an increasedemphasis on spatial organization. This interest in more generalized approaches intensi-fied during the quantitative-theoretical period with the rapid spread of studies utilizingstatistical analysis and model building. To some extent the third period of change, theshift away from the quantitative-theoretical, also constituted a shift away from the gen-eral. The positivist critique included strong criticism of an undue reliance on simplisticmathematical models. It could also be said that some of the new work of this period suchas that of the humanists and postmodernists represented a move toward the specific. Otherworks such as those of the Marxists and the structurationists, however, was based ondeveloping new sets of generalizations.

Another view of the periods of change would be to stress their continuity rather thantheir revolutionary or cyclical characteristics. There is much to be said for this “many-flowers-shall-bloom” view. Clearly there has been both continuity and change throughout

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the three periods.22 None of the displaced paradigms vanished completely from the liter-ature after the change to a new paradigm took place. Even now after a pluralistic, social-theory emphasis has been with us for 30 years, work in all of the previous paradigms isstill being carried on—albeit sometimes under another name. What was once called thestudy of man-land relations has continued under the more appropriate label of ecology orsociety-environment study. Regional study is still being carried on—including the newregionalism and the locality studies. The quantitative theoretical work still goes on andgeographic analysis is still devoted to new developments in spatial analysis. Although theview of continuity is a popular and persuasive one, it fails to account for the strong surgesof interest in new approaches in the 1920s, 1950s and 1970s. These surges combinedinterest in new paradigms with vigorous rejections of earlier ones.

A fourth trend noted in the 100-year period may be the emergence of somethingapproaching a definitional consensus. Pattison’s traditions, as modified by Taaffe, stillprovide a reasonably good description of the subject matter treated by geographers since1900. First ecology was stressed in the form of man-land relations; then regional study inthe form of areal differentiation; then spatial analysis. Since the 1970s, during a period ofMarxism, humanism, structurationism and critical realism, the stress has been on all threesubject-matter groups—in varying proportions.23

Geographers are still looked to for insights into our changing views of the natural envi-ronment; our continuing concern with the multidisciplinary study of regions, communi-ties, and globalization; and our expanding ability to carry on sophisticated approaches tospatial analysis in the form of GIS and conceptual models.

Finally, we would like to propose a combined trend model. The model is basically acontinuity model with surges superimposed to represent the three “revolutions.” Duringthe surges the weaknesses of the previous paradigm are usually stressed and caricatured.We hear much of the perils of “environmental control,” “obsession with factual minutiae,”and “searches for the one true equation.” Generational models like those proposed byJohnston (1997) may also be applicable. Later, as the surge subsides, we begin hearingmore about hapless conceptual babies being thrown out with the bathwater of the oldparadigm. The merits of some aspects of the previous paradigm are discussed and recog-nized, and a certain amount of continuity sets in—perhaps only to lead to a wave of enthu-siasm about a new paradigm.

REFERENCES

Abler, R. F., Marcus, M. G. and Olson, J. M., editors, 1992, Geography’s Inner Worlds:Pervasive Themes in Contemporary American Geography. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Ackerman, E. A., 1945, Geographic training, wartime research, and immediate profes-sional objectives. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Vol. 35, 121–143.

22See Brown, 1999, for a similar observation.23See Abler et al. (1992) and Gaile and Willmott (1989).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Ackerman, E. A., 1965, The Science of Geography. Washington, DC: National Academyof Sciences, National Research Council, Publication No. 1277.

Barnes, T. J., 1996, Logics of Dislocation: Models, Metaphors, and Meanings of Eco-nomic Space. New York, NY: Guilford.

Barrows, H. H., 1923, Geography as human ecology. Annals of the Association of Amer-ican Geographers, Vol. 13, 1–14.

Berry, B. J. L., 1972, Revolutionary and counter-revolutionary theory in geography: Aghetto commentary. Antipode, 51: 31–33.

Berry, B. J. L. and Garrison, W. L., 1958, The functional bases of the central place hier-archy. Economic Geography, Vol. 34, 145–154.

Bowman, I., 1916, The Andes of Southern Peru: Geographical Reconnaissance Along theThirty-seventh Meridian. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

Bowman, I., 1924, The Desert Trails of Atacama. New York, NY: American GeographicalSociety, Special Publication No. 5.

Brown, L. A., 1999, Change, continuity and the pursuit of geographic understanding.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 89, 1–25.

Brush, J. E., 1953, The hierarchy of central places in Southwestern Wisconsin. Geo-graphical Review, Vol. 43, 380–402.

Burton, I., 1963, The quantitative revolution and theoretical geography. The CanadianGeographer, Vol. 7, 151–162.

Chorley, R. J. and Haggett, P., 1967, Models in Geography. London, UK: Methuen. Cloke, P., Philo, C., and Sadler, D., 1991, Approaching Human Geography: An Introduc-

tion to Contemporary Theoretical Debates. New York, NY: Guilford.Colby, C. C., 1936, Changing currents of geographic thought in America. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers, Vol. 26, 1–37.Couclesis, H. and Golledge, R. G., 1983, Analytic research, positivism and behavioral

geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 73, 331–339. Davis, W. M., 1906, An inductive study of the content of geography. Bulletin of the Amer-

ican Geographical Society, Vol. 37, 67–84.Dear, M. J., 1988, The postmodern challenge, reconstructing human geography. Transac-

tions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 81, 262–274.Duncan, J. and Ley, D., 1982, Structural Marxism and human geography: A critical per-

spective. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 72, 30–59. Finch, V. C., 1933, Montfort: A study in landscape types in Southwestern Wisconsin.

Chicago, IL: Geographical Society of Chicago, IL, Bulletin 9: 15–40.Gaile, G. L. and Willmott, C. J., editors, 1989, Geography in America. Columbus, OH:

Merrill.Garrison, W. L., 1959, The spatial structure of the economy. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, Vol. 49, 232–239, 471–482.Garrison, W. L., 1960, The spatial structure of the economy. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, Vol. 50, 357–373.Garrison, W. L., Berry, B. J. L., Marble, D. F., Nystuen, J. D., and Morrill, R. L., 1956,

The Benefits of Rural Roads to Rural Properties. Seattle, WA: State Council for High-way Research.

Gidden, A., 1979, Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradic-tion in Social Analysis. London, UK: Macmillan.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Gidden, A., 1984, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Godlund, S., 1956, The Function and Growth of Bus Traffic Within the Sphere of UrbanInfluence, Lund Studies in Geography, No. 18. Lund, Sweden: C.W.K. Gleerup.

Golledge, R., 1984, A Review of Analytical Behavioral Geography. In D. T. Herbert andR. J. Johnston, editors, Geography and the Urban Environment: Progress in Researchand Application. Chichester, UK: John Wiley, 1–44.

Golledge, R. and Rushton, G., editors, 1976, Spatial Choice and Spatial Behavior: Geo-graphic Essays on the Analysis of Preferences and Perceptions. Columbus, OH: OhioState University Press.

Gould, P. R., 1974, Mental Maps. Baltimore, MD: Penguin. Gregory, D., 1978, Ideology, Science and Human Geography. London, UK: Hutchinson. Gregory, D., 1982, Regional Transformation and Industrial Revolution: A Geography of

the Yorkshire Woolen Industry. London, UK: Macmillan.Hägerstrand, T., 1953. Innovationsforloppet ur Korologisk Synpunkt [Innovation Diffu-

sion as a Spatial Process]. Lund, Sweden: C.W.K. Gleerup. Translated by A. Pred,1967. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Haggett, P., 1965, Locational Analysis in Human Geography. New York, NY: St. Martin’sPress.

Hanson, S., 1993, Never question the assumptions and other scenes from the revolution.Urban Geography, Vol. 14, 552–556.

Harris, C. D., 1954, The market as a factor in the localization of industry in the U.S.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 44, 315–348.

Harris, C. D. and Ullman, E. L., 1945, The nature of cities. Annals of the American Acad-emy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 242:7–17.

Hartshorne, R., 1939, The Nature of Geography, A Critical Survey of Current Thought inthe Light of the Past. Lancaster, PA: Association of American Geographers.

Hartshorne, R., 1959, Perspective on the Nature of Geography. Chicago, IL: RandMcNally.

Harvey, D., l969, Explanation in Geography. London, UK: Edward Arnold.Harvey, D., 1972, Revolutionary and counter-revolutionary theory in geography and the

problem of ghetto formation. Antipode, Vol. 4, 1–13.Harvey, D., 1973, Social Justice and the City. London, UK: Edward Arnold.Huntington, E., 1915, Civilization and Climate. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Isard, W., 1956, Location and the Space-Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Isard, W., 1960, Methods in Regional Analysis: An Introduction to Regional Science...

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. James, P. E. and Jones, C. F., editors, 1954, American Geography: Inventory and Pros-

pect. New York, NY: Syracuse University Press.James, P. E. and Martin, G. J., 1981, All Possible Worlds: A History of Geographical

Ideas (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.James, P. E. and Mather, E. C., 1977, The role of periodic field conferences in the devel-

opment of geographical ideas in the United States. The Geographical Review, Vol. 67,446–461.

Johnston, R. J., 1997, Geography and Geographers: Anglo-American Human Geographysince 1945 (5th ed.). London, UK: Edward Arnold.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Kuhn, T. S., 1970, Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

Ley, D., 1974, The Black Inner City as Frontier Outpost: Images and Behavior of a Phil-adelphia Neighborhood. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers,Monograph Series No. 7.

Ley, D., 1983, A Social Geography of the City. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Ley, D. and Samuels, M. S., editors, 1978, Humanistic Geography: Prospects and Prob-

lems. London, UK: Croom Helm.Massey, D., 1983, Industrial restructuring as class restructuring: Production, decentraliza-

tion and local uniqueness. Regional Studies, Vol. 17, 73–89.Massey, D., 1984, Spatial Division of Labor: Social Structures and the Geography of

Production. London, UK: Macmillan.Massey, D., 1991, The political place of locality studies. Environment and Planning A,

Vol. 23, 267–281.Mayer, H. M. and Kohn, C. F., editors, 1959, Readings in Urban Geography. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.McCarty, H. H., 1954, An approach to a theory of economic geography. Economic Geog-

raphy, Vol. 30, 95–101.McCarty, H. H., Hook, J. C., and Knos, D. S., 1956, The Measurement of Association in

Industrial Geography. Iowa City, IA: Department of Geography, University of Iowa.Morrill, R. L., 1993, Geography, spatial analysis and social science. Urban Geography,

Vol. 14, 442–446.Pattison, W. D., 1966, The four traditions of geography. The Journal of Geography, Vol.

63, 211–216.Peet, J. R., 1975, Inequality and poverty: A Marxist-geographic theory. Annals of the

American Association of Geographers, Vol. 65, 564–571.Peet, J. R., 1977, The development of radical geography in the United States. Progress in

Human Geography, Vol. 1, 240–263.Platt, R. S., 1928, A detail of regional geography: Ellison Bay community as an industrial

organism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 18, 81–126.Platt, R. S., 1948, Environmentalism versus geography. American Journal of Sociology,

Vol. 53, 351–358.Platt, R. S., 1957, A review of regional geography. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers, Vol. 47, 187–190.Pred, A., 1983, Structuration and place: On the becoming of sense of place and structure

of feeling. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, Vol. 13, 45–68.Pred, A., 1984, Structuration, biography formation and knowledge: Observations of port

growth during the mercantile period. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,Vol. 2, 251–.

Pred, A., 1987, Place, Practice and Structure: The Emergence and Aftermath of Enclo-sures in the Plains Villages of Southwestern Skane, 1750–1850. Cambridge, UK: Cam-bridge University Press.

Relph, E., 1970, An inquiry into the relations between phenomenology and geography.Canadian Geographer, Vol. 14, 193–201.

Relph, E., 1976, Place and Placelessness. London, UK: Pion.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Sauer, C. O., 1925, The morphology of landscape. University of California Publicationsin Geography, Vol. 2, 19–53.

Sayer, A., 1982, Explaining manufacturing shift: A reply to Keeble. Environment andPlanning A, Vol. 14, 119–125.

Sayer, A., 1984, Methods in Social Science: A Realist Approach. London, UK: Hutchin-son.

Sayer, A., 1985, Realism and geography. In R. J. Johnston, editor, The Future of Geogra-phy. London, UK: Methuen, 159–173.

Sayer, A., 1993, Postmodernist thoughts in geography: A realist view. Antipode, Vol. 25,320–344.

Schaefer, F. K., 1953, Exceptionalism in geography: A methodological examination.Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 43, 226–249.

Semple, E. C., 1911, Influences of Geographic Environment. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Smith, J. R., 1913, Industrial and Commercial Geography. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Smith, N., 1979, Geography, science and post-positivist modes of explanation. Progress

in Human Geography, Vol. 3, 356–383.Smith, S. J., 1984, Practicing humanistic geography. Annals of the Association of Ameri-

can Geographers, Vol. 74, 353–374.Stone, K. H., 1977, Geography’s wartime service. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers, Vol. 69, 89–102.Taaffe, E. J., 1970, Geography. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Taaffe, E. J., 1974, The spatial view in context. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers, Vol. 64, 1–66.Tuan, Y. F., 1971, Geography, phenomenology and the study of human nature, Canadian

Geographer, Vol. 15, 181–192.Tuan, Y. F., 1976, Humanistic geography. Annals of the Association of American Geogra-

phers, Vol. 66, 266–276.Tuan, Y. F., 1977, Space and place: The perspective of experience. London, UK: Edward

Arnold.Ullman, E. L., 1953, Human geography and area research. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, Vol. 43, 54–66.Van Cleef, E., 1937, Trade Centers and Trade Routes. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-

Crofts.Walker, R. A., 1981, A theory of suburbanization. In M. J. Dear and A. J. Scott, editors,

Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Societies. London, UK: Methuen,383–430.

Whittlesey, D. S., 1927, Devices for accumulating geographic data in the field. Annals ofthe Association of American Geographers, Vol. 17: 72–78.

Whittlesey, D. S., 1929, Sequent occupance. Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers, Vol. 19, 162–165.

Whittlesey, D. S., 1954, The regional concept and the regional method. In P. E. James andC. F. Jones, editors, American Geography: Inventory and Prospect. New York, NY:Syracuse University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UO

V U

nive

rsity

of

Ovi

edo]

at 0

8:05

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Three 20th Century "Revolutions" in American Geography