ON THE CONTENT AND THE TASKS OF HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY (AS THE HISTORY OF NATURE MANAGEMENT)

A Pleistocene geologist calls for a totally new approach to the study of geography as the basic discipline concerned with the man-nature relationship, or what he terms nature management (Russian, prirodopol'zovaniye). He views the basic study object of an essentially unified geography as natural-technical territorial complexes (biotechnocenoses or geotechnocenoses), requiring investigation in three time dimensions—the past (historical geography), the present (dynamic geography) and the future (predictive geography). In keeping with the proposition that historical geography should be a separate, unified discipline, a distinctive historical-geographic periodization is proposed, differing from the periodizations in use in paleogeography, anthropology, archeology and history.     

Geographical Preplanning Studies of Economic Complexes in the South of Krasnoyarsk Kray

The planning of the Sayan economic complex, a major development region in the South of Krasnoyarsk Kray, is found to have focused mainly on the use of local resources without adequately considering the complex interplay of man-nature relationships. In particular, little work has been done on problems of landscape ecology, including a determination of landscape budgets and of the ecological functioning of geosystems. The results of relevant investigations are presented, focusing on the present distribution of production and settlement within the study region, the natural landscape and forest use, land and agroclimatic resources, types of farming and levels of farm equipment, and some aspects of human ecology. The study region is found to suffer from excessive concentration of production and settlement in the center of the Minusinsk Basin, a net out-migration exceeding natural increase of population, and an extensive type of farming that is less economical than the dairy economy and truck produce required for a growing urban population.     

Discussion Of The Volume Priroda I Obshchestvo [Nature and Society]

In March 1969, a group of geographers at the Geographical Society USSR in Leningrad convened a meeting to discuss the volume Priroda i obshchestvo (Moscow, 1968), a collection of articles concerned with the role of geography in investigating the man-nature relationship. Selected articles appeared in Soviet Geography, May 1969. Some of the discussants were critical of certain authors on the ground that they argued in favor of a unified geography to deal with the man-nature relationship as a whole and did not differentiate between socioeconomic systems (capitalism, socialism) in appraising society's attitude toward nature. The official report of the meeting, in which five principal discussants participated, follows.     

On the Unity of Geography

A Leningrad University physical geographer criticizes attempts to affirm the unity of geography through the creation of new disciplines like “general geography,” which would focus on study of the man-nature relationship. He contends that such a general geography, which would seek to identify general geographic laws, is advocated primarily by economic geographers who would emphasize the role of man at the expense of physical geography. Isachenko takes issue with the view that what makes any research “geographical” is its relationship to man. He contends that the criterion of whether any investigation is “geographical” is its relationship to the geosystem, defined as any natural complex, ranging from the global to the local scale. In his opinion, the unity of geography should be furthered not through the establishment of new supradisciplines, such as general geography, but through closer ties, both in methodology and in organizational terms, between the two main groups of geographical disciplines—physical geography and economic geography.     

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.     

TOWARD A UNIFICATION OF CONCEPTS AND TERMS USED IN INTEGRAL LANDSCAPE INVESTIGATIONS

A discussion of the concepts and terms of landscape research developed and applied for more than a decade at the field stations of the Institute of Geography of Siberia and the Far East (Irkutsk). The key concepts are geosystems, which represent the sphere of interaction between animate and inanimate nature; ecosystems, which focus on the biotic aspect of geosystems. Geosystems are said to fall within the sphere of interest of the landscape geographer, while ecosystems are viewed as the study objects of ecology, a biological discipline. Although the two approaches are said to be distinctive, the interests of geographers and ecologists overlap, and a common terminology for both disciplines is proposed.     

The Scientific Basis for Presentation of the General Geographical Relations of the Landscape Sphere in an Exhibit of the Museum of Earth Science

The author, a curator of the Earth Science Museum of Moscow University and an advocate of a general geography, reviews the methodological dispute in Soviet geography. He urges official status in education and research for a general geography that would be concerned with establishing the general geographic laws of the man-nature relationship and would delimit natural-social regions and zones. Such a general geography, in the author's view, would not supersede or dominate the other branches of geography, but would function side by side with the particular disciplines. Proposals made by I. P. Gerasimov in 1966 to restructure geography into basic problem areas instead of the traditional subdivisions are said to be in line with the efforts of those advocating a general geography.     

Straddling the Boundaries Between Sciences

The author reverts to the theme that, in addition to the particular disciplines in physical geography and in economic geography, there is a genuine need for a general geographic approach to study of the geographical environment and of the man-nature relationship. As a result of the growing social impact on the environment, the operation of natural laws and social laws becomes so closely intertwined that no single discipline operating with one particular set of laws is capable of understanding the complex processes and phenomena in the interplay between nature and society. The growing specialized differentiation of geography as a science does not eliminate it as a distinct field of human knowledge with a common object of study. However there is a danger that the process of differentiation may be going too far, with an increasing number of scholars from adjacent disciplines coming into geography. The trend is said to be evident in the advanced training of geographers in universities, where geography facilities are turning into collections of departments turning out, say, meteorologists with little general geographic background. And yet there is a growing need for broadly trained geographers, particularly in the entire field of long-range planning and pre-planning research, in which the author is engaged.     

The Concept of the Noosphere

A Marxist philosopher questions the premise stated during the debate over a unified geography [1960–1964] that the natural sciences must be concerned with the study of the laws of nature and the social sciences with the study of the laws of society, and the two may not be mixed. He develops the concept of the noosphere as the sphere in which man interacts with nature (called by others the anthroposphere, technosphere, or sociosphere) and suggests the need for the elaboration of a general theory of the man-nature relationship. The first steps leading to such a theory should involve the study of society by the techniques of the natural sciences, the study of nature by the techniques of the social sciences, and the elaboration of parameters characterizing the actual man-nature relationship.     

Theoretical Discussions and Some Research Tasks and Applied Problems in Economic Geography

Two economic geographers, commenting on Anuchin's latest book on the theory of geography, urge a halt to the fruitless debate over a “unified geography” and call for a more practical orientation of geographic research. Dwelling on a wide range of issues, from geography education to the content of geography journals, the authors hold that the man-nature relationship is no longer adequate as a conceptual framework for geography and that economic geography, in particular, must take into account political and social processes that fall within the province of political science and economics. A gap is found to have developed between political science, on the one hand, and economic geography, on the other, and the authors hold that such a gap might be filled by a discipline concerned with the spatial organization of economic processes. A legitimate role is seen here for a regional economics, or choreconomics. In the authors' view, geography would gain not only from a more pronounced economics-oriented economic geography, but also from a more practically oriented physical geography.     

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.     

Logical Problems in Geographic Science

Logicalization, or the conversion of a science to logical form, is viewed as an essential step in the formulation of theoretical geographical concepts. Three stages of logicalization are envisaged: (1) the identification of a limited number of fundamental concepts from which all other concepts can be deduced by logical operations; (2) the formation on the basis of these fundamental concepts of a set of axioms in geography; (3) the construction on the basis of these geographical axioms of a set of geographical theories in the form of formalized deductive systems. Among the fundamental concepts in geography are the concepts of geosystem and its geospace. Proposed axioms are: (1) a geosystem (and therefore its geospace), if viewed as a finite set of elements, forms an intersection with itself, meaning that nothing can be added or subtracted and the set must remain unchanged; (2) the number of geosystems is finite. Two essential conditions for the existence of a geosystem are postulated: (a) the intensity of the internal field of interaction must exceed the intensity of the intersystemic field of interaction, linking the given geosystem with other geosystems; (b) over a certain interval of time, a geosystem may become stronger through the incorporation of other systems and turn into a geosystem of higher rank, or it may break down under the impact of other geosystems.     

Geosystems and Geostructures

An attempt is made to distinguish geosystems and geostructures as the two basic objects of study in geography. Geosystems and geostructures are interdependent but different spatial formations. Geosystems are defined by direct, reverse, and transformed relationships among such relatively autonomous components as natural environment, population, and economy. Geosystems tend to be superimposed on one another and are relatively flexible and stochastic. Geostructures, on the other hand, are distinguished by a unity of heterogeneous components, by comparatively clearly defined boundaries, and by considerable rigidity of construction. (One of the authors, A. M. Smirnov, died in July, 1969.)     

The Present State and Future Tasks of Physical Geography

Progress in physical geography as a separate research and teaching discipline is reviewed, and unfinished tasks for the next few years are outlined. The discipline continues to focus on the study and mapping of landscapes or geosystems as integrated areal units of the earth's physical-geographic environment. Emphasis is being placed on the use of quantitative techniques and systems theory as well as field observations, particularly at permanent field stations. New areas of application of landscape research are found to be opening up in physical planning, design engineering, evaluation and prediction.     

Present Problems in Theoretical Geography

The need for a distinctive discipline of theoretical geography is enhanced by three current research trends in geography related to the scientific and technical revolution. They are remote sensing, resource use and economic location. Theoretical geography is concerned with the automated processing of the growing body of geographical data, the study of complex geosystems and their multidimensional geospaces and the development of a set of geographical axioms. The development of theoretical geography is closely related to the growing use of mathematical methods in geography by formulating geographical problems in a form amenable to mathematical analysis. Theoretical geography helps to formalize geographical concepts and facilitates the building of models in geography. Models, in turn, provide a better understanding of a system than can be expressed in words.     

A Selected Bibliography of Mathematical Articles in Soviet Economic Geography (1960–1968)

Advocates of a new discipline of theoretical geography seek to bolster their argument for establishment of the discipline with quotations from Lenin. Theoretical geography, conceived more broadly than Bunge's mathematical geography, would seek to generalize the findings of all the particular geographical disciplines, to formulate general geographical laws, develop a common geographic method and common approaches to the formalization and modeling of geographic phenomena. Its objects of study are so-called geosystems, which are conceptualized as totalities of the autonomous spatial systems of the environment, population and the economy. Each geosystem is viewed as being associated with its geospace, defined as the “eigenspace of geographical objects, of geographically whole formations”. Geosystems are regarded as possessing a certain degree of freedom in contrast to the view that cause-and-effect relations within such systems are rigidly predetermined. The outlines of a number of general geographic laws are suggested. They include the law of growing contrast in spatial systems of all types and the law of asynchronism in the development of spatial systems. Theoretical geography is presented as having significant practical application in the analysis and prediction of the effect of man's development of spatial systems, in setting of development priorities and determining optimal types of development.     

The Citation Relationships between Journals of Geography and Cognate Disciplines

There is an ongoing debate concerning the relationship between the disciplinary ends of the broad spectrum that is geography and also the relationship between geography and other disciplines, including the extent to which it is self-focussed or inward looking. These issues were assessed using an analysis of citation relationships between journals in the Thompson Scientific Journal Citation Reports databases at the category level. Thirty-four categories were used, comparing the two geography categories (‘Geography’, representing human geography and ‘Geography, Physical’, representing physical geography) with 32 other cognate categories. A matrix of the citation relationships between each category was developed using a relatedness factor that corrects for the opportunity for citations to occur. The resultant matrix of factors indicates that human geography journals are considerably more likely to cite their own papers than are those of physical geography, but that they are by no means the most self-citing of the journals assessed. Both human and physical geography journals have strong citation relationships with several other disciplines, with those for human geography most often being net export relationships in the sense of a balance of trade. This finding contradicts previous assertions that human geography imports more than it exports. The citation relationships of physical geography are smaller than those of human geography, and are typically small net imports. The relationship between human and physical geography journals is a small net export from physical geography to human geography, but their total trade volume is considerably smaller than their respective relationships with other disciplines. These results are likely to be caused by many factors in addition to the actual relatedness between disciplines and sub-disciplines, but they do represent a benchmark against which more detailed analyses can be assessed.     

THE GEOGRAPHICAL ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN BIOLOGY (the anthropological aspect)

Among the various problems relating to the man-nature relationship, little work has been done on the mechanism by which extreme natural environments, such as those observed in the Arctic, in continental Siberia, in the tropics and in highlands, affect the human organism. A Moscow University anthropologist discusses the geographical distribution of some anthropologic traits and concludes that some physiologic and morphologic features inherent in members of different races and ethnic groups tend to adapt themselves to particular environments without posing an obstacle to existence in other ecological settings. It is found in particular that members of different races or ethnic groups will display similar adaptive characteristics in a given environment while members of a particular ethnic group will show different adaptive tendencies in different environments. [The article is based on the author's book Geograficheskaya sreda i biologiya cheloveka (Geographical Environment and Human Biology), published in Moscow in 1977.]     

On the Significance of Lenin's Ideas for Soviet Geography

The president of the Geographical Society USSR reviews the present state of Soviet geographic theory in the light of Leninist philosophy. The objective existence of natural regions with definite boundaries is affirmed. The approach of “social physics,” applying natural laws to social phenomena, is rejected. The use of mathematical techniques is welcomed, but not to the extent of giving rise to a separate discipline of “theoretical geography” that would deal with whatever is common to both physical and economic geography. The geographical environment is defined as that part of the earth's natural environment in which nature and society are in direct interaction. Both geographical determinism and social determinism (geographical nihilism) are rejected. The definition of geography as a system of scientific disciplines is affirmed, and a proposed redefinition of geography as dealing with the evolution and control of dynamic spatial systems is rejected.     

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.