Geography is a term and a field that covers a lot of ground and as such is a social science that is not universally defined and its utilization is in constant flux. I argue that Geography as whole is an examination of relationships and interactions throughout space between the social, ecological, political and economic realms of nature-nature being of humans and the environment. This definition remains vague on purpose. Throughout history however, Geography as a discipline and as an academic pursuit has morphed and shifted in what it encompasses and how it is defined and will likely continue to do so. Early geography for example, as defined by Strabo (64BC-20AD), was contrived of
wide learning...[which] is solely possessed by the man who has investigated things both human and divine...regards knowledge both of the heavens and of things on land and sea, animals, plants, fruits, and everything else to be seen in various regions. The utility of geography, I say, presupposes in the geographer the same philosopher, the man who busies himself with the investigation of the art of life, that is, of happiness. (Holt-Jensen, p. 27, 2018).
One stipulation with this definition during Strabo’s time was that geography was constrained to a descriptive discipline whose role was describing earth and its different places such that humanity and nature were included, it was not considered a science, nor a science of necessarily social nature.
Cox in Making Human Geography cites a few claims on Geography’s definition and makes few himself that are worth exploring as well. To start with the conundrum that makes this question so interesting: “Geography’s anxiety’s about itself are of long standing...Explaining itself to the rest of the world has been a continuing problem, though this is partly because of the diversity of the subject matter.” (p. 199). Cox also claims that geography has foundered at
defining itself because it does not have “an object of study like the other fields.” (p. 200). I would counter that one could study anything and everything from a geography point of view. Though, I am not certain that is his claim, perhaps Cox hints at the breathtaking range of applicability geography has in objects of study. Regardless, from his point of view, geography is important for a number of reasons, including that the other social sciences draw on geography and geography draws upon them. For example, space-time and space relations are a fundamental piece of geography and also of any social science, “social relations are always and necessarily spatial ones.” (Cox, 201).
I would like to argue that another area where the contemplation of what geography is can be explored is through a brief examination of the closing of Harvard’s Geography department in 1948. This has been picked apart many times and many factors have been attributed to it and probably contributed to it. However, Isaiah Bowman played a central role along with financial constraints following WWII, and a failure at cohesion in the field and its rather new establishment as a department on its own. A question here, in which Bowman believed he helped influence the closing of the department, is, was the saving of Geography as a field and the legitimization of it as worth studying in Universities an outcome with Bowman’s gamble at Harvard? Or, was this a huge loss for the field as well as a precursor and influence in the closing of other geography departments adjacent to the end of WWII and in the present? “It was certainly wishful thinking to conclude that the demise of Harvard geography was unimportant...” (Smith, p. 164). Whether Bowman realized this eventually or not is unclear, but he spent a significant amount of time after this defending geography. It seems he dug a deep hole, trapped himself and geography in it, and then attempted to climb out of it with geography strapped to his back for the rest of his career.
On the other hand Smith contends that there were multiple factors. It was not just Whittlesey, Rice (professors at Harvard) and Bowman who had failed to win respect for geography and failed to make Conant (Harvard’s president) or Buck (Harvard’s provost) “‘see anything in geography,’” (p. 167) but factors of financial instability and the institutional weakness of geography. On the financial point, Conant saw Harvard’s financial situation as dire and given the timing, Geography was the first thing to jettison. On the point of institutional weakness, Smith's conclusion is a result of “the lack of a clear intellectual terrain and set of goals...[and] the alleged low caliber of geographical scholarship at Harvard.” On the subject of departments closing today, one can argue that the lack of clear intellectual terrain and goals is a continued barrier for Geography, as many departments have failed to establish themselves in the eyes of students, administrators, and other disciplines alike on just what geography is and what its goals are. Which returns us to the essential question of this writing: what is geography? This is also intertwined with the barrier that the field continues to be fractured between physical geography and human geography and so cohesion and agreement within the discipline itself is scarce. To define geography here seems difficult as debates between faculty in departments themselves may vary.
To me, the definition of geography is up for debate at any given moment, it is as diverse and subjective as the matters it purports to study. This is not to say that geography does not have theoretical basis, methods and approaches, it is more that it has the capability to be flexible and widely applicable, unlike some other fields of study. What is clear is that geography, as a field of study, is commonly studying relationships and interactions throughout space and time between the social, ecological, political and economic realms of nature-nature being of humans and the environment.
Works Cited/References
Cox, K. (2014). Making Human Geography. The Guilford Press.Holt-Jensen, A. (2018), The Roots of Geography. Geography, History and Concepts: A Student’s
Guide pp. 21-34. Sage Publications.Smith, N. (1987), “Academic War Over the Field of Geography”: The Elimination of Geography
at Harvard, 1947–1951. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77: 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00151.x
Comentários