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).     

Problems of Geographical Education in the USSR

Geography education in the Soviet Union is found to lag behind advances in geography as a research discipline. Courses in both elementary and secondary schools and at the college and university level are overloaded with factual material at the expense of theoretical problems and general concepts. An essential requisite for improving the content of geography education is better training of geography teachers. Soviet geography teachers are now being trained mainly in the combined geography-biology faculties of teachers colleges. Combined training in more than one teaching discipline is essential because a teacher trained in geography alone would not have a full teaching load of 18 hours a week in most schools. However, the geography-biology combination does not appear to be optimal because the emphasis in biology is no longer on botany and zoology, as in the past, but on human physiology and genetics, with less relevance to geography. It is recommended that geography as a teaching discipline be combined with other subjects of instruction having greater relevance to geography teaching, possibly chemistry, physical education or foreign languages. Less emphasis on fact-loaded regional courses and more stress on systematic courses is recommended, together with training in mathematical techniques.     

Atlas of the United States

In an attempt to distinguish between regional physical geography and the Soviet school of landscape science, the author defines the study objects of the two disciplines and provides a useful review of the present state of landscape science in the Soviet Union. Physical geography is said to be concerned with study of the entire geographical shell of the earth, ranging from the troposphere to the bottom of the layer of sedimentary rocks in the earth's crust. Landscape science focuses on the so-called landscape sphere, which is defined as the portion of the geographical shell that lies at or near the surface of the earth and is imbued with present-day life. Although some Soviet geographers treat the term “landscape” as a broad conceptual term (similar to climate), most investigators tend to give the term a classificatory or typological connotation, regarding landscape as the basic unit in a classification of natural geocomplexes. One landscape school focuses on the morphological structure of landscape, the other on model-building of the landscape mechanism.     

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.     

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.     

INTEGRATION AND DIFFERENTIATION IN MODERN GEOGRAPHY

A leading physical geographer reviews recent efforts in the Soviet Union to foster integration among the physical and socioeconomic disciplines of geography. He identifies a number of barriers that stand in the way of integration: the ever increasing multiplicity of conceptual approaches and models in geography, runaway terminological innovation and confusion, the increasing tendency of socioeconomic geographers to give their particular disciplines a greater economic and sociological orientation, the lack of cohesion in efforts to work out general geographic concepts and theories, the absence of physical-geographic background in work on social and economic geography, the increasing trend toward differentiation in geography, the fact that there is actually very little joint work among physical and socioeconomic geographers. In Isachenko's view, geography in the Soviet Union remains inevitably a dualistic discipline, in which progress toward genuine integration would require, for example, genuine collaboration among geographers in the various subfields.     

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.     

Problems of General Economic Regionalization at the Present Stage

Professor Ryabchikov, Dean of the Geography Faculty of Moscow University, finds that Soviet teachers colleges are adequate to supply geography teachers to the middle schools, especially in view of a gradual reduction of the number of class hours devoted to geography in those schools. He sees the primary function of university geography as the training of specialized geographers for industry, agriculture and other segments of the national economy. Universities are therefore urged to reorganize their curricula from the present somewhat academic approach to a greater practical and applied content that would benefit graduates in their new jobs. The author calls on universities to strengthen their ties with industry by taking advantage of the Soviet system of contractual research for production organizations.     

The Concept of Landscape and Landscapes of Different Orders

The paper is an expanded version of a Lomonosov lecture given April 12, 1956, in the Earth Science Museum of Moscow University. Yefremov criticizes the confusion derived from the dual meaning of “landscape” as used by Soviet geographers: (1) landscape as an areal unit of varying taxonomic rank constituting a complex of all components that interact within the earth's surficial sphere (or landscape sphere), and (2) landscape as an indivisible basic areal unit, or “molecule,” or “cell” of physical geography. Yefremov defends the first and assails the second point of view.     

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.     

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.     

雷纳德·格尔柯历史地理学思想简论

雷纳德·格尔柯是当代加拿大享有盛誉的历史地理学家 ,在历史地理学理论与方法上颇有建树 ,其学术观点代表了西方现代历史地理学界一种流派。本文旨在通过对其历史地理学主要学术思想和观点的评述 ,以期对国内学者认识和了解当今西方现代历史地理学观点有所帮助     

The today and tomorrow of Geography

The author proposes a fundamental shift of the center of gravity of Soviet geography from Its present emphasis on physical geography toward greater stress on economic geography. He feels that most major geographic problems should be solved by inter-disciplinary teams of geographers from various specialized fields in which economic geographers would act as conductors of the geography orchestra.     

Soviet Geographic Literature

A review of geography publishing in the Soviet Union analyzes the output of literature by categories of end-users: (1) publications designed for professional geographers, including works on theory and method, university textbooks, periodicals and serials, and bibliographic and information services; (2) geographic publications intended for the public at large, including regional studies of different levels of sophistication on the Soviet Union and foreign areas as well as popular geography books; (3) geography textbooks and study aids for elementary and secondary schools, which represents the largest portion of geography publishing in terms of volume, with an average of 4 million books printed each year. Recommendations for improvements in geography publishing include the creation of a Council on Literature, made up of professional geographers; the establishment of a centralized publishing house that would specialize in geography (except for textbooks, government publications and special-purpose literature), and the establishment of a translation journal that would disseminate some of the more significant foreign articles in Russian translation.     

SOCIO-ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY IN THE WEST AT A TURNING POINT

The decade of the 1970s is viewed as a turning point in the development of socio-economic geography in the West. An increasingly sociological focus has been accompanied by strong criticism of the traditional foundations of human geography and economic geography. A radicalization of socio-economic geography has involved several contradictory trends and periods. A symptomatic and important aspect, from the Soviet point of view, has been increasing interest on the part of some Western scholars in Marxist theory and in the work done by Soviet geographers in socio-economic geography.     

Quantitative Methods in Physical-Geography Research

The use of quantitative techniques in physical geography is discussed with reference to three particular disciplines—climatology, glaciology and geomorphology. Although significant advances have been made in these and other particular disciplines, there is increasing need for applying quantitative methods to the composite of geographical processes, related to various forms of the exchange of matter and energy. A quantitative approach to integrated physical-geography research is needed for a resolution of the general problem of a quantitative explanation of the physical-geographic process and the formulation of a quantitative theory of physical geography. Aside from inherent difficulties in applying quantitative techniques to physical geography, particularly the biogeographic disciplines, there are additional problems of an organizational nature in the Soviet Union, where specialists in various disciplines tend to be associated with different institutes.     

新文化地理学视角下的文化景观研究进展

论文梳理近三十年英美新文化地理学有关文化景观的研究脉络,介绍文化、意义和表征等基本概念。按哲学基础将其分为社会马克思主义影响下的景观面纱、生产研究,语言学影响下的景观文本研究,知识建构论的景观作为梭子,女性主义影响下的景观作为凝视,以及景观想象与身份问题研究。多元化的哲学基础和研究方法开拓了研究视野,也促进了人文地理学研究范式的转变。     

Present Problems in Soviet Cartography and the Tasks of the Geographical Society

After having long existed as a technical discipline serving the needs of geographers, cartography in the Soviet Union has become increasingly a research discipline involving many common interests with geography. Collaboration between cartographers and geographers is becoming increasingly essential as more attention is being given to thematic cartography involving not only particular disciplines (geomorphology, economic geography, population geography) but what may be called an integrated “geographical” cartography. Much effort continues to be devoted in the Soviet Union to the compilation of regional atlases and to a wide range of thematic maps. Increasing attention is being given to the production of evaluative maps, assessing the potential use of the physical environment and natural resources. School maps represent a major part of Soviet map production. Tourist and hiking maps need to be seriously improved.     

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.