The Subject and Structure of Geosystems Theory

A logical model of the system of disciplines generally known as physical geography distinguishes three subjects of study, each associated with a particular level of organization of the basic study object, namely the earth's physical landscape envelope or landscape shell and its subsystems (individual landscapes or geocomplexes): (1) study of the componental level of organization would be the subject of the particular disciplines in physical geography (geomorphology, climatology, etc.); (2) study of the integrated level of organization would be the subject of landscape science, which is viewed as a synthesis of the particular disciplines; (3) study of the earth's natural environment at the level of the entire landscape envelope would be the subject of general physical geography or general earth science. The subject matter of the particular disciplines and of the synthesized landscape science is further broken down into research areas: regional research (concerned with geographical spaces); typological research (quasi-geographical spaces) and general research (nongeographical).     

The Development of General Earth Science in the USSR During the Soviet Period

General earth science, or general physical geography, is viewed as one of three synthetic physical-geographic disciplines, the two others being landscape science, or regional physical geography, and paleo-geography. General earth science is concerned with the earth's geographic or landscape envelope as a whole and with its general patterns: the laws of zonality and integrity of the landscape envelope, the circulation of matter, rhythmicity, polar asymmetry and other regularities.     

On the Study of the History of Geographical Ideas

The author rebuts the criticism by Yu. G. Saushkin that the book Razvitiye geograficheskikh idey [The Evolution of Geographical Ideas] is in effect a history of physical geography rather than a history of geography as a whole. Isachenko contends that concepts of natural science have been at the root of geography throughout its history and it is therefore natural for a history of geographical ideas to deal predominantly with the ideas of physical geography. Far from having ignored human geography, Isachenko contends, his book traces the anthropocentric school through its various stages of development. Only the survey of Soviet geography was restricted to physical geography, the author says, because Soviet geography consists of two virtually independent disciplines and the author happens to be a physical geographer viewing his discipline as the foundation of all geography.     

Fifty Years of Development of Soviet Geographic Thought

A review of trends in Soviet geography covers the increasing specialization of physical-geographic disciplines and attempts to integrate physical geography through landscape-study techniques and the theory of a physical-geographic envelope of the earth. Economic geography has focused on regionalization problems and the formation of territorial-production complexes. The controversy over the content of geography is reviewed, and cartography and regional geography are viewed as frameworks for the generalization of geographic information. The new constructive school of Soviet geography is described.     

基于地理学视角的中国山水画分析

本文从美术地理学的角度出发阐述了中国山水画的地域差别,指出地理环境对山水画的影响主要表现在几方面:即对山水画作品面貌的影响,对山水画家创作灵感的影响,对作品风格和地域特色的影响,对山水画派和地域人才形成的影响。因而,地理环境是艺术家创作的对象和源泉,也是决定美术风格的关键因素,对山水画派和地域人才的形成具有重要影响。     

Results of the Third Congress of the Geographical Society of the USSR

A review of the IGU symposium on the history of geographical thought, held in July 1976 in Leningrad, discusses common themes in papers presented by Soviet geographers and foreign participants. In the view of the Soviet organizers, the foreign presentations were more concerned with the past than with the current impact of geography on socio-economic activities, which is said to distinguish the Soviet school of geography. The work of the symposium demonstrated that the ideas of geographical determinism had been largely abandoned. The presentations of foreign geographers suggested that they were still inadequately informed about the work of Soviet geographers despite ongoing translation programs.     

The Landscape Sphere and the Geographical Environment

An advocate of a unified geography adopts a biosocial, or natural-social, approach to the definition of several concepts in geography, distinguishing the landscape sphere and the geographical environment. The landscape sphere of the earth consists of the sphere of the natural landscape (comprising both untouched and man-altered nature) and the sphere of human activity, or sociosphere, which includes the sphere of the cultural landscape (agrosphere plus technosphere) and mankind itself. The geographical environment includes the natural environment (man-altered nature plus parts of untouched nature), the material results of the labor of past generations and geographical manifestations of the social environment.     

On the Problems of Geography and the Tasks of Popularizing Geographical Knowledge

A Moscow University geographer who advocates a unity of geography uses the medium of the Znaniye [Knowledge] Society, an organization for the popularization of scientific knowledge and communist ideology, to review the basic problems confronting geography as a research discipline. He reviews the historical sequence of philosophic concepts relating to the man-environment system in an attempt to justify his approach to the system as one in which both natural and social laws operate. Anuchin stresses the need for pure theoretical research in geography and polemicizes with those who seek prompt practical results. He restates his definition of the geographical environment as that part of the earth's landscape sphere in which nature and society interact as two parts of a single whole governed by distinctive laws. The metachronous character of development of the landscape sphere, with several parts formed at various times, is cited as an example of such a universal law. Anuchin agrees with the authors of The Science of Geography, the 1965 report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Geography, Division of Earth Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, that geography's overriding problem is to gain an understanding of the man-environment system and to develop tools for geographical prediction. An ability to predict the consequences of man's interference in natural processes is depicted as the principal contribution that geography can make to the pursuit of knowledge at the present stage of human development. If geography is unable to meet its responsibilities, the problem of geographical prediction may have to be taken over by other disciplines. Soviet biologists have already suggested the creation of a new science, geohygiene, to deal with the man-environment relationship.     

On the So-Called Anthropogenic Landscapes

A Leningrad physical geographer, who is an advocate of the natural landscape school in Soviet geography, offers a critique of the school of anthropogenic landscape science favored by F. N. Mil'kov of Voronezh University and others. Landscapes, in the critic's view, are natural formations produced by physical cause-and-effect relationships among their natural components, and no basis is found for the development of a theory of anthropogenic landscapes that reflect the impact of human activity and minimize the role of natural elements. The author questions whether man is in fact capable of creating landscape in the literal sense and whether this can be accomplished by merely modifying a single natural landscape component. Further investigation is urged to establish the real role of engineering structures and agricultural activities in the landscape and their place within the system of natural linkages within the landscape. This line of investigation should then lead to study of the structure of landscapes that have been modified by man and to an understanding of a sequence of landscape succession, including man-induced and reconstructed variants.     

Study of the History of Geographical Ideas

Two recent books on the history of geographical ideas, by A. G. Isachenko of Leningrad University, and by Preston James of Syracuse University, are reviewed in the general context of the need for a textbook for courses now being taught at Soviet universities. The Isachenko book is criticized on the ground that it reduces the history of geographical ideas to a history of physical geography, ignoring the impact of human activity. James, who deals with the history of geographical ideas as a whole, is praised for having included a chapter on the new geography in the Soviet Union and on the innovative aspects of theoretical geography, such as systems theory, spatial systems, diffusion on studies, etc. In the reviewer's opinion, the two books need to be examined critically in connection with preparation of a text for a Soviet university course on the history and methodology of geography.     

A DEFENSE OF ANTHROPOGENIC LANDSCAPE SCIENCE

A founder of the Soviet school of anthropogenic landscape science defends the discipline against charges that it ignores the fundamentals of geographic landscape theory and confuses anthropogenic landscapes with types of land use and engineering structures. The development of a separate anthropogenic approach in landscape science is justified on the ground that maninduced landscapes, such as cropland, pasture, vineyards, secondary forest, reservoirs, open pits and spoil banks play an increasing role in the environment and require separate investigation. Anthropogenic landscapes, far from being counterposed to natural landscapes, are treated as a distinctive genetic group of landscapes that owe their origin to human interference, but follow natural laws of development. Anthropogenic landscape science is said to be concerned with the physical-geographic and ecological aspects of human impact on the environment, while the study of types of land use focuses on the technology and economic benefit of such impact. [For previous translations on the issue, see Soviet Geography, October 1974 and December 1975.]     

GEOGRAPHICAL SYSTEMS AND ECONOMIC-GEOGRAPHICAL SYSTEMS

A group of physical geographers of the Institute of Geography in Moscow, the principal academic research institution in geography, published an article in 1974 seeking to define and categorize terms and concepts now being used in Soviet geography. The article said the term geosystem (geographical system) applied equally to physical-geographical and socio-economic entities, and the term “geographical environment”, in actual research practice, referred not only to the physical setting of human activities, but also to engineering elements and social conditions. The present writer contends that such a definition of the geographical environment, incorporating both natural and social elements, smacks of a unified geography, and that geosystems, as originally defined, refer only to natural terrestrial systems, excluding man.     

An Approach to the Substantiation of Stochastic Conceptions in Geography

The penetration of stochastic-statistical conceptions into geography is viewed as a natural process in the history of development of science, as is seen from the history of physics and biology. Without denying the importance and the need for theoretical models constructed in geography on the basis of strict determinism, the authors stress the heuristic value that the stochastic-statistical methods have for an explanation of geographical phenomena. The authors suggest that Soviet geographers still have a preference for deterministic models based on the classic mathematical notions of exactly predictable relationships.     

The Subject of Geography and the Science of the Man-Nature Relationship

A philosopher views the geographical environment as a natural-social concept, in which individual elements function simultaneously in a system of natural and social relationships. The geographical environment should be the province of a discipline called general geography, which would exist in addition to specialized physical and social geography. However, since general geography is limited spatially to the earth's landscape sphere, it cannot deal with the broader aspects of the man-nature relationship now that man's influence extends increasingly beyond the earth into outer space. A new discipline called “noology” is proposed to deal with the interplay between human society and all of nature.     

Landscape Methods Abroad (with reference to land resource studies of the United States and Australia)

Although landscape research has not been set apart formally as a distinctive branch of geography in the West, the methods used in certain research programs in the United States and in Australia come close to the integrated areal approach to the study of the physical environment characteristic of Soviet landscape science. In the United States, landscape-like methods are used by the Soil Survey staff of the Department of Agriculture in its soil surveys of counties. In Australia, the landscape approach is used by the Division of Land Research of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in its reports on Australia's land systems.     

THE GEOGRAPHY OF OCEANS AND ITS BASIC PROBLEMS

The study of oceans as a subfield of geography has gained acceptance in the Soviet Union. Some universities have introduced courses in marine geography, and geographers have participated in oceanographic research voyages. An effort is made here to define the place of a marine geography within the geographic discipline as a whole, to set the spatial limits for geographical investigations of the oceans and to suggest problem areas suitable for geographical analysis. In keeping with the Soviet dichotomy, physical and economic geographic problems are distinguished. Physical-geographic problem areas would include study of oceanic water masses; large-scale interaction between oceans and atmosphere; study of island environments, and the biogeography of oceans. Economic geographic problems would focus both on theoretical aspects, such as spatial regularities in human activities related to oceans, and on applied aspects, providing a sound basis for economic development of ocean areas.     

THINGS THAT ARE ALMOST BUT NOT QUITE WELL KNOWN IN PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY

The author, a physical geographer, sees no need to despair about the present state of the discipline and the future of geography. He places geography in context among the sciences and finds a need for a synthesizing discipline that pulls together the findings of the particular disciplines. Such a function might be performed by landscape science and regional geography. In general, geographers are found to go too far afield in their research and there is a need to define the focus of the disciplines to eliminate the present centrifugal tendencies. Such a unifying focus might be found in geographical prediction. Geographers should be aware of the limits and capabilities of their discipline; geography is most effective in fostering solutions in conjunction with other disciplines. Fieldwork per se is criticized; some geographers make a fetish of fieldwork, spending their life in the field without ever writing up the results as a contribution to science. The language of geographical exposition must be cleansed of pseudoscientific jargon; too much geographical writing is incomprehensible. The use of mathematics in geography should be placed in historical perspective; it is not the panacea for all that ails geography.     

LANDSCAPE AS A SUBJECT OF HUMAN IMPACT

A continuing critique of the Soviet school of anthropogenic landscape science (see Soviet Geography, October 1974) questions whether man is, in fact, capable of creating “new” landscapes or his intervention in the natural environment simply tends to “modify” existing natural landscapes. The author rejects the view that significant modification of anyone of the components of landscape (including flora and fauna) is sufficient to produce an anthropogenic landscape or that a cutover forest area or a cattle trail, for example, represents a newly created landscape. A genuine modification of landscape requires an alteration of the basic structure of landscape, and this can be achieved only through modification of primary landscape components, such as the geomorphic foundation and climate. These are precisely the components that are less susceptible to human intervention than secondary components like plant and animal communities. Another criterion of basic landscape modification is stability; most anthropogenic landscapes turn out to be unstable when abandoned. Man achieves the most stable results in landscape modification by acting in concert with natural dynamic tendencies in the landscape.