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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

地理学中人的基本假设刍议

本文从地理学人地关系地域系统中人的角度,分析和解释人的基本假设中经济理性、工具理性、科学理性与感性存在的经济人、政治人、自然人、生态人、社会人、文化人、感性人、复杂人等各种以人为研究视点的地理学研究中所体现的人的个体与群体、微观与宏观、阶层与阶级、感性与理性等的特征、作用、类型和差异。在总结各种地理学人的分析方法、范式与经验的基础上,提出构建人地系统地理人平台和初步设计,以期对于人地关系地域系统的科学认知有所帮助。     

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).     

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.     

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.     

The Concept of the Unity of Geography in the Solution of Basic Problems of Geography

The author, a supporter of the unity of geography, calls for integrated geographic research as the only method by which geography can make its contribution to the planning of economic development. Only such an integrated approach, he says, can raise geography from its present “second-rate” position among the sciences to the forefront of scientific contributions to the national program of building a Communist society.     

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.     

A Sad Tale About Geography

Anuchin takes the discussion on methodology, long confined to the academic journals, to a general newspaper, complaining that geography as such in breaking up into particular disciplines without a reverse trend toward synthesis. He accuses I. p. Gerasimov, director of the Institute of Geography, of slighting research in integrated geography and economic geography and of reducing all geography to the physical-geographic group of disciplines.     

The Teaching of Ethnography in Higher Schools and of Elements of Ethnography in Middle Schools

Apparently encouraged by Il'yichev's speech, Anuchin uses the forum of a philosophy journal to urge more work on synthesis in geography. He visualizes the geography of the future as a science that would seek to uncover what he calls the “parameters” of the geographic environment and would seek to establish the precise limits within which man might alter the environment without causing undesirable after-effects.     

“Academic War” over Geography? Death of Human Geography at the Australian National University

This article analyses how neoliberal economic policies decide what particular aspects of knowledge are valuable and what are not, and who might be the true holder of that knowledge within the tertiary education system. This assessment leads to some disciplines being seen as less valuable to the system. It argues that the more recent “academic wars” in geography are over the very concept of the university and its role in the contemporary society, what comprises useful knowledge, and who comprises the authoritative figure in the production and distribution of that knowledge. Gender of the geographer therefore becomes a crucial element that determines “authority” in the production of geographical knowledge. To substantiate this argument, the paper takes up the important task of analysing the complex career trajectory of geography within the Australian National University (ANU), the department that was gradually reduced leading eventually to its unfortunate closure in 2009.     

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.     

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.     

Interaction between Nature and Society and Modern Geography

This paper, delivered by one of the leading Soviet philosophers at a plenary session of the Fourth Congress of the Geographical Society USSR, is the latest authoritative statement on the relationship between physical and economic geography. The author balances the fact of increasing differentiation and specialization and the continued existence of separate physical and economic-geographic groups of disciplines against the need for more synthesis in geographic research. He thus echoes ideas expressed by V. A. Anuchin earlier this year in the philosophical journal Problemy Filosofii [see Soviet Geography, April 1964]. Konstantinov, in preparing the paper, made use of the materials of the Combined Conference of Philosophical [Methodological] Seminars of the Academy of Sciences USSR on the theme “The problem of the interaction of nature and society and the place of the geographic sciences in its solution” [see Tezisy dokladov (Abstracts of Papers), Moscow, 1964], especially the paper by A. G. Doskach, Yu. P. Trusov, and Ye. T. Fadeyev on “The interaction of nature and society and some problems of modern geography.” Konstantinov also acknowledges suggestions from Academician I. P. Gerasimov, V. Zh. Kelle, a philosopher, and Academician Ye. K. Fedorov, a geophysicist.     

The Place of Regional Economic Geography in the System of Geographical Sciences

The author holds that regional geography cannot be regarded as an independent geographic discipline because it lacks its own system of laws, such as the natural laws that operate in physical geography and the social laws that operate in economic geography. He agrees with the view that both physical and economic geography fall into theoretical and regional departments, and that regional studies test the localized application of the general laws formulated by the theoretical departments of the two great divisions of 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.