Geography Research Collection

No generally accepted definition of social geography exists. The variety of literature which has appeared under the title of social geography is astounding; even within particular schools there are wide disparities of approach and definition. With some notable exceptions, for example, in Sweden and Holland, social geography can be considered a field created and cultivated by a number of individual scholars rather than an academic tradition built up within particular schools. Furthermore, for many people the term “social geography” itself is in disfavor because its past association with various forms of determinism that postulated a causal connection between society and the geographical environment. Perhaps, therefore, the best way to examine social geography is to establish a general theoretical outline of the field and, on this basis, to review the existing literature. Naturally, many of the works relevant to what is here called social geography will have been written as contributions to some other discipline.

The concept of social space (l'espace social) was defined and illustrated by Maximillien Sorre in reference to ethnic, religious, and language groups. Paul-Henri Chombart de Lauwe distinguished between objective social space (the spatial framework set by ecological and cultural conditions) and subjective social space (the space perceptions of a particular group), hypothesizing that in an urban context where a discrepancy between these two frameworks occurred, social pathologies tend to develop. This led to his studies of optimal residential densities, neighborhood design, and other standards, applicable to working-class families. A relatively simple analytical concept has thus produced a variety of research orientations.

The location, structure and design of residential areas comprise some of the most absorbing problems facing planners to-day. The private and social needs of urban families are intimately affected by the physical arrangements of living, and the seemingly infinite variety of private aspirations and social whims indicate the complexity of the subject which is now the object of much research and experimentation by social scientists and planners. To date few generalizations about residential area planning have been sufficiently tested to enable planners to employ them with confidence in the preparation of proposals for development, but certain recurring themes can be discerned in the theoretical literature and in practice, and these will be explored in the first part of this chapter before a pilot investigation undertaken as part of the Planning Standards Study is described.

Then said a teacher, Speak to us of Teaching. And he said: No man can reveal to you aught but what which already lies half asleep in the drawing of your knowledge. The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and his lovingness. If he is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of his wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind… For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man. Gibran, The Prophet Who, today, would not hesitate to attempt a published statement on “values in geography”? Perhaps someone thoroughly versed in moral philosophy, or someone imbued with what C. Wright Mills calls the “sociological imagination”; or perhaps someone convinced that geography is, or should be, “value free”. I am none of these. Each time I attempt to articulate a statement on the subject, I am overwhelmed with feelings of inadequacy, and lack courage to face the ambiguities surrounding the question Why should I, scarcely tend years since beginning graduate work in geography and caught in some unique value dilemmas in my own life, write on this subject? It is from a conviction of the present need for discussion of the question, and an assurance that it is as important now to raise issues as to resolve them.

“As scientists of individual and collective behavior we seek to so well understand men that we can predict their behavior, and to be so knowledgeable about every facet and level of human interaction as to foretell the consequences of changes introduced into any behavioral setting. As visionaries illumined by our private internal lights, we years for the society where self-conscious brotherhood replaces alienation, where the affirmation of life over death becomes a pervasive ethic, and where dignity replaces alienation or poverty as the stamp of the human condition.” --Kates (1969, p.47) Two countervailing themes emerge from recent futurological writing. On the one hand one hears a plea for more rationally-ordered monitoring systems to guide and police society’s future technology and life styles. On the other hand one hears the humanist’s plea for an environment conducive toward freedom and creativity for the individual in the future. At each pole, elaborate scenarios are sketched; convincing arguments are rallied on both sides; yet certain basic contrasts in their fundamental ideological and moral premises makes it difficult to evaluate and judge between these seeming conflicting visions for the future. This paper outlines three alternative perspectives on this dilemma. First, a look at their philosophical premises will try to highlight the tension between these contrasting perspectives on the future. Secondly, some observations on the scientist’s characteristic role within society will hopefully lead to some fundamental questions regarding elitism and the managerial spirit. Thirdly, an attempt will be made to cast society’s future projections in the form of a drama, using the metaphors of transactional analysis to sharpen our focus on the inequalities and inconsistencies of society’s current stance on planning for the future. Finally, some suggestions are made concerning potential reorientations of geographic effort in this field.

The organization and administration of health and welfare services raise issues of national economic policy and social planning; ideally, the physical planner’s role is to design a spatial framework within which these services could be provided so as to optimize efficiency for supplier and accessibility to client. Theoretically, in any given context, the nature, quality and range of services are determined by central and regional health and welfare authorities, while the location, and size of physical facilities should involve primarily the town and regional planner. Historically, of course, such a division of labour has rarely existed; the present network of health and welfare facilities in many countries has arisen from a host of local social and administrative circumstances rather than from any deliberate joint research by physical and social planners.

Recent attempts by geographers to explore the human experience of space have focused on overt behavior and its cognitive foundations. The language and style of our descriptions, however, often fail to speak in categories appropriate for the elucidation of lived experience, and we need to evaluate our modes of knowing in the light of modes of being in the everyday world. Phenomenologists provide some guidelines for this task. They point to the preconsciously given aspects of behavior and perception residing in the “lifeworld”—the culturally defined spatiotemporal setting or horizon of everyday life. Scientific procedures which separate “subjects'’and “objects,'’thought and action, people and environments are inadequate to investigate this lifeworld. The phenomenological approach ideally should allow lifeworld to reveal itself in its own terms. In practice, however, phenomenological descriptions remain opaque to the functional dynamism of spatial systems, just as geographical descriptions of space have neglected many facets of human experience. There are certain avenues for dialogue between these two disciplines in three major research areas: the sense of place, social space, and time-space rhythms. Such a dialogue could contribute to a more humanistic foundation for human geography.

The notion of ‘paradigm’ exercises a growing appeal among historians and commentators on geographic thought. (Stoddart, 1967; Whitehand, 1970, 1971; Chorley, 1974; Berry, 1974). As with ‘peneplain’ a few generations ago it offers an illusion of clarity yet remains sufficiently vague and analytically elusive to occupy our imaginations for a long time. The theory of scientific revolutions has provoked a virtual cacophony of protest and acclaim which was exposed several latent conflicts and uncertainties in the history and philosophy of science. (Kuhn, 1962; Lakatos and Musgrave, 1970). What emerges from this din with resounding clarity, however, is stronger evidence than before that the evolution of scientific ideas cannot be appreciated without a closer scrutiny of their social, ideological, and political milieux.

Cet article essaie d'évaluer les implications des courants phénoménologiques et existentialistes pour la géographie. Le relativisme socio-culturel conteste des modèles de recherche que la pratique contemporaine n'avait pas questionnés. En transposant la notion de Lebenswelt (monde vécu) en termes de genre de vie, on présente un schéma d'analyse qui pourrait encourager la réflexion critique sur (a) les rapports sociologiques et les relations de pouvoir associés au vécu du géographe luimême, dans sa pensée et dans sa pratique; (b) la capacité des modèles courants à expliquer l'expérience vécue. Time, space and lifeworld. — This article interprets some claims made by phenomenology and existentialism and evaluates their potential significance for geography. Questions are raised regarding socio-cultural relativism in taken-for-granted research models and their applications. Translating Lebenswelt (lifeworld) in terms of genre de vie, a framework is presented which could facilitate critical reflection on (a) sociological construction and power relations associated with the geographer's own lifeworld of thought and praxis, and (b) selectivity and relative appropriateness of current models for the elucidation of lived experience.

I.INTRODUCTION: Throughout a century of Western social thought, mankind's perennial enquiry into the where, when, and how of life has yielded a rich legacy of speculation. From the ebullient satire of Butler's Erewhon (Butler 1872) and the idealism of utopian fiction, the angry critique of Existentialist and Marxist philosophy and the resounding protest of popular song, evidence abounds that the human spirit remains undaunted in its desire to not only grasp the course of' events but also to ameliorate and control the conditions of life. The increasing rate and complexity of change in our day renders the challenge to rationality so overwhelming that at times it becomes difficult to pause, reflect, and evaluate the latent assumptions and implications of scholarly effort. Barriers to communication between separate worlds of scholarship, too, prevent the flow of insight between different specialized perspectives, or the restoration of harmony between the YIN and the YANG of human reason.

Two distinct connotations of term ‘region’ have generated two distinct and often separate fields of endeavour within geography. Traditional regional geography has focused on the description of areally-circumscribed territories, while regional science (in the Anglo-American world) has tended to be more analytical and more specifically concerned with nodally-organized functional regions. Two contrasting definitions of space and time are implicit here – the former derives from a Newtonian notion of space and time as containers of objects while the latter derives from a relational notion of space-time as topological surface. For a number of sociological and ideological reasons, however, both share a perspective on knowledge and experience which could be regarded as an ‘outsider’ one. The ‘insider’s’ perspective has not received much explicit attention, largely because of difficulties in generalization and a fear of ‘subjectivism’. Arguments are raised to support the view that the geographer’s task is the articulation of neither inside nor outsider views exclusively but rather to confront the challenge of the dialectic between the two within concrete life situations. From a philosophical viewpoint it could be argued that objectivity demands a critical sensitivity to the logic and appropriateness of models used in research. To take any descriptive model which has appeared for particular settings and then apply it indiscriminately to other settings is one example of cultural ‘subjectivism’ e.g. the kind of regional geography which became a mouthpiece for national/ colonial/ class interests. On a logical plane, also, regional-science models appropriate for particular realms, yet there have been many gaucheries of spatial blueprinting in realms as different as industrial, educational and health planning. It is at the practical level of everyday life, however, that the juxtaposition of these two types of regionalization often creates most confusion. On philosophical, logical, and practical grounds, it could be argued that no long-term solution can be reached without involving the ‘insider’, viz. those whose lives are affected by changes in regional organization and administration. Until better communication between managerial and resident interest can be attained, geography cannot claim either relevance or truth. The most urgent task for the regional geographer thus becomes one of education in the literal sense: to evoke an awareness of the values implicit in his own a priori presuppositions and then to facilitate an awareness of environment and responsibility among the audience of his work. This paper shares some insights derived from various attempts to apply this perspective in both teaching and research and also points to avenues for joint exploration by scholars attained to either ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ stances on regional life. It concludes with a challenge, old and new, of seeking a common language which might contribute toward a harmonization of the currently diverse and fragmented strands of thought and practice within regional geography.

Fragmentation of knowledge and life milieux, so often associated with specialization in science and planning, provided the broad challenge in science and planning, provided the broad challenge for a DIALOGUE PROJECT initiated by Torsten Hägerstrand and Anne Buttimer in Sweden during the Academic Years 1977-1979. The initial incentive for confronting such a wide-ranging set of issues arose from a paper on Values in Geography (Buttimer, 1974), after which the author was invited as a Fulbright lecturer to offer a series of seminars in Lund on problems of knowledge and experience. More than forty participants from ten widely different disciplines took part in this seminar, and foundations were laid for an experientially-grounded approach to the problems of communication across disciplines. The present project was initiated when Anne Buttimer was invited to accept a full time position in Sweden by the Humanistisk-Samhällsvetenskapliga Forskningsrådet (Council for Humanities and Social Science) in 1977. Financial support for this pilot phase of the Dialogue Project was granted by the Swedish Committee for Future Oriented Research and the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. The geography department at the University of Lund continues to provide material and administrative help, with Torsten Hägerstrand as Co-Director.

Cities are an immense laboratory of trial and error, failure and success, in city building and city design. This is the laboratory in which city planning should have been learning and forming and testing its theories. Instead the practitioners and teachers of this discipline…have ignored the study of success and failure in real life, have been incurious about the reasons for unexpected success, and are guided instead by principles derived from the behaviour and appearance of towns, suburbs, tuberculosis sanatoria, fairs, and imaginary dream cities – from anything but cities themselves – Jane Jacobs (1961:6). The livability of residential environments has become one of the most urgent challenges facing our industrial cities. Despite the volumes of scientific research, experimentation, and evaluation, our understanding of the problem remains embarrassingly incomplete. Its very complexity baffles the investigator. One merely carves out slices or the problem and investigates them according to the concepts and procedures of specific disciplines.

The initiative to assemble the following essays in one volume came from Professor Torsten Hågerstrand at the University of Lund in the fall of 1977. Ideas and questions which I had shared there during 1976 had aroused curiosity and concern. Issues such as environmental perception, values, subjectivity, language, stress – could these be regarded as legitimate objects for geographic study? Even if one could appreciate the humanistic or even logical grounds for such interests, how could one operationalize research on them? Often I referred to work being done by colleagues and students at Clark University and elsewhere in North America, and indeed since then there has been more exchange of ideas between Swedish and American scholars. Those who had worked directly with me did not, I felt, constitute an identifiable group: each individual had pursued his or her own line of work in conjunction with many others. In fact, we had encouraged one another to pursue topics which seemed important in their own right and none would claim the role of pioneer or spokesman for new kinds of disciplinary orthodoxy. But that is what is attractive, Professor Hågerstrand insisted: fresh beginnings and provocative theses are far more inspiring that finished products. It is in this spirit that we have responded. We present here a selection of ‘excursions’ – benchmarks on intellectual journeys begun at the Graduate School of Geography at Clark University and now traversing fresh territory – rather than faits accomplis within a unified field of expertise.

“Country Road take me home to the place I belong…” Emotionally laden eulogy on the meaning of place rings through much modern poetry and song. Nostalgia for some real or imagined state of harmony and centeredness once experienced in rural settings haunts the victim of mobile and fragmented urban milieu. Like many a fortune seeker amidst the lights of Broadway who longed for the simple cottage near the rippling stream back home I suppose one could say: “you never know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone”. Patriotic songs about native soil and forest that built the spirit of nationhood in many of our countries were often written in the cities of North America and Australia. And today, as the uniqueness of places becomes more and more threatened by the homogenizing veneer of commercialism and standardized-component architecture, many long for their hembygd and smultronställe.

« Mais où sont les neiges d’antant ? », François Villon. Le sentiment et le symbolisme, la mémoire et l’espoir s’articule métaphores de temps, d’espace et de géographie (Bachelard 58, 64, 75). Et comme le dit Vidal de la Blache, le paysage humanisé peut être cest une médaille frappée à l’image de la civilisation. Les paysages de la ville industrielle américaine de la fin du xxe siècle : terrain très favorable pour démêler le conflit d’idéologies qui rivalisen les horizons Temps-Espace des citadins.

For friends and colleagues throughout the world the names of Hägerstrand and Lund are associated as closely as are those of Wittgenstein and Vienna. To be personally introduced to that place by Torsten – the place which for forty years has been the milieu of his own creative work – certainly leaves a lasting impression. One returns from such guided tours with a kaleidoscope of impressions: the architecture is no longer “frozen music” (Goethe), it comes alive with harmonious as well as conflicting melodies, with enigmas as well as consistencies. If one can play with the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and historical “fact” in the head of the scholar, then surely the visible landscape can be a playground for imagination and inference: interpretations telling as much about the observer as the observed. The following parody and sequel to Esaias Tegnér’s Pa Helgonabacken – an epic which, Torsten assured me, every schoolboy knows – is such a playful exercise. One May evening in 1976 I walked alone through Lundagård and allowed imagination and memory to mingle freely between impressions of Swedish life and history and my own impressions of Fenian folklore, endeavoring to “fit” all that I saw into the Vidalian tenet that “landscape is a mirror of civilization”, a “medal struck in the image of a people”. Successive pageants had no doubt paraded through this site, each with its own retinue of symbols, building styles, political and functional objectives. Traces from each could be easily discerned. Was there a way to discern, albeit metaphorically, the human drama which had accompanied the morphological evolution of Lundagård? And could one speculatively bridge such historical musing with the contemporary drama of Swedish society? With all the naivete of “first impressions”, the following saga emerged…

The term “region” has both emotional and political appeal. Emotionally it can evoke sentiments of “at homeness”, security, and cultural identity; politically it can connote empire, spatial organization and decentralized administration. In the postwar crusade of applied social science, the regional concept has enjoyed an impressive mileage. Despite all its conceptual and analytical elusiveness it remains unrivalled, with the possible exception of its twin “community”, as a powerful myth in contemporary life. To future generations the story of mid-twentieth-century regional planning should make dramatic reading. To a “Humpty Dumpty” world reeling from the shock of war and uneasy with “inefficiency” and poverty, applied science offered promise for revitalizing the social and technical order. A priesthood of experts rekindled the Wester world’s waning faith in rationality and fashioned a utopian kingdom where both socialism and liberalism could reign.

L’aménagement a suscité un grand movement d’enthousiasme tant en Europe qu’aux Etats-Unis à partir du milieu de XXe siècle. Aujourd’hui, les résultats des opérations “rationnalles” d’aménagement suscitent des réactions mitigées. Il est necessaire de tenir compte des consequences humaines et écologiques à long terme de la rationalisation, de la tension entre les exigences de l’efficacité économique et les nécessités de la justice sociale, de la contradiction entre les intérêts à l’échelle régionale ou nationale et les intérêts locaux, ainsi que d’aboutir à une meilleure definition des ressources en tous genres. Reason, rationality and human creativity. A dramatic groundswell of enthusiasm for planning has characterized the Euro-American Zeitgeist during the mid 20c. Today the fruits of rational "expertise" have yielded a harvest of mixed blessings. It is necessary to take into account the long-term human and ecological consequences of rationalization within both "producer" and “consumer” fields; the tension between requirements of economic efficiency versus the minimum requirements of social justice; the tension between regional/ national versus local interests ; the definition of resources.

Auf dem 44. Deutschen Geographentag in Münster vom 24. -28. Mai 1983 hielt Professor Anne Buttimer (Lund/ Clark) den Einleitungsvortrag zur Sitzung 22 “Raumbezogene Wahrnehumungsforschung”. Sie tat dies nicht mit einem belegereichen Forschungsstandsbericht über die Erfolge und Mißerfolge verschiedener Schulen und Aspekte. Solche Überblicke liefern T. Saarinen und J. Sell in regelmäßigen Abständen in der Zeitschrift Progress in Human Geography. Anne Buttimer sprach stattdessen einen freien Kommentar über eine Reihe anschaulicher Graphiken, Schemata und Modelle, in denen sich der Ertrag vieler Jahre des Nachdenkens auf fast spielerische Weise niedergeschlagen hatte.