PHILOSOPHY AND GEOGRAPHY IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY: A COMMENT

At the end of his review essay occasioned by 'the appearance of Margarita Bowen's Empiricism and Geographical Thought: From Francis Bacon to Alexander von Humboldt ,' J. A. May wrote: I think     

THE SPATIAL STRUCTURE OF HIERARCHICAL INTER-URBAN SYSTEMS: EQUILIBRIUM AND OPTIMUM*

In this paper, I model a simple hierarchical inter-urban system in which the location of business firms is considered together with the determination of residential land-use patterns. By supposing a spatial externality between the business firms and all the residents of the region, three spatial structures are obtained: monocentricity, multicentricity, and a separate pattern where cities are spatially split with an agricultural land existing between them. It is also shown that the spatial structures of monocentric and multicentric patterns formed by the market principle tend to be more concentrated than the optimum.     

THE IDEALIST DISPUTE IN ANGLO-AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY: A COMMENT

Curry has raised some new and important issues concerning the value of the idealist philosophy in geography, and his paper makes a significant contribution to a clearer understanding of this approach. Although in his final judgment Curry comes down hard on my position, declaring it to be 'fundamentally misguided,' his actual view of idealism is more ambivalent and not nearly as clear-cut as the words 'fundamentally misguided' might suggest. This is revealed by his defence of the position in the earlier part of the paper and his mild treatment of Collingwood, on whose book The Idea of History much of my own position is based.¹ There are also parts of Curry's paper that would seem compatible with idealism as I understand it, and with some clarifications and modifications to both our positions a basis of broad agreement between us would appear to exist.     

HISTORY,AFRICA, AND DEFAMILIARIZATION: A COMMENT

After initially identifying defamiliarization as a central aspect of Nancy Rose Hunt's essay “History as Form,” this comment reflects on the implications that her reading of Georg Simmel and her emphasis on objects and materiality have for the writing of history. If Hunt suggests, with Simmel, that the form of history is autonomous from history as it unfolds, the claim here is rather that there is no necessary relationship between writing and its topic. Considering how earlier European historiography excluded Africa (in particular) from the domain of history, it is no coincidence that this contingent relation between form and history has been particularly energizing for Africanist historiography—leading to innovations both in practice and theory. The comment concludes by briefly discussing three concepts that have informed such innovation: the vernacular, suturing, and multiple temporalities.