OTRAS ACTIVIDADES DE VINCULACIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN

Note 49)

The final question raised by our examination of the nature of geography, as presented to us both by its historical evolution and by the logical consideration of its position among the sciences, is the same question that has provoked so much controversy throughout almost the entire history of modern geography--certainly ever since Bucher raised the issue in 1827. If geography studies the areas of the world according to the differential character of their phenomenal contents, either according to a systematic point of view, category by category, or, on the other hand, according to an areal point of view, each area in terms of all its heterogeneous phenomena, how can these two points of view be related to each other in a unified field of geography ?

Our historical survey showed that, while modern geography from its beginnings has included both of these points of view--in theory even in Varenius's outline--it has experienced notable shifts in emphasis from one to the other. Whereas the work of Humboldt combined both points of view, under the influence of Ritter, systematic studies were placed in a subordinate position and easily lost sight of. Though the protests of Bucher and Fröbel were of no avail at the time, a later generation following Peschel, and motivated by scientific standards developed in such fields as geology, swung the center of interest the other way. As late as l9l9 Hettner found that in Germany systematic geography was generally regarded as "something higher, more distinguished" than regional geography. He therefore repeated the arguments that he had presented at various times during nearly a quarter of a century to show that the two parts of the field were scientifically on the same level [142, 22 f.]. Less than a decade later, however, he found it necessary to presentopposite arguments to urge the same conclusion; for "youth, which is given to exaggeration, has turned Or too much away from systematic geography" [161, 401];(we can hardly suppose that Hettner was unaware of the fact that some of those concerned were not much younger than he). The reaction that had taken place earlier in France, under Vidal, swept German geography in the post-War years toward an increasing emphasis on regional geography, as the real goal of geographic work. Thus Obst, believing that one could develop a science of "Länderkundliche Typologie" wished to shift the time- honored term of "general geography" to the study of regional types as the goal of geography, and placed systematic geography (as allgemeine Erdkunde) in the subordinate position of a necessary propaedeutic [178, 6-9]; somewhat similar views have been expressed by Braun [155, 5],Volz [151, 247], Ule [170, 486], and Gradmann [quoted in 166, 13].

Likewise in this country, the emphasis that Barrows, and particularly Sauer, had placed upon the study of regions (in the latter case, "landscapes") led some to regard systematic studies as necessary only for instructional purposes but inappropriate for geographical research.

On the other hand, such veterans as Hettner and Penck have never wavered in their insistence that both points of view were of equal importance in geography [Hettner has said as much in almost every methodological treatment he has written; for Penck, see 129, 639; 137, 173-76; 163, 44]. The very fact that geography has experienced these successive shifts

in emphasis from one side to the other is in itself indirect evidence that both are of coordinate importance in the field [cf. Hettner, 2, 306].

In his critical investigation of geography as a single, unified field of science, Kraft finds that, while one could dismiss the charge of dualism of content--natural and human features--as invalid, the inclusion of the systematic and the regional points of view was an unquestionable form of dualism. He agrees with Hettner, however, that this dualism cannot be expressed simply as the combination of a nomothetic and an idiographic science; systematic geography must include the study of unique cases, and regional geography must use generic concepts and principles. In any case, neither construction of laws nor the description of the unique represents the purpose of geography, or of any other science. The purpose of geography is the same in both branches, the comprehension of the areal differentiation of the earth, and this purpose cannot be solved either by systematic studies alone nor by regional studies alone, but requires both approaches. Consequently, he concludes, this dualism in approach is justified as necessary for the single aim which makes geography a unified science [166, 11-13].

This view, we may add, is further supported by the fact, stressed by Hettner, that it is frequently difficult to classify particular studies under one heading or the other. The difference is not in the substance, but in the point of view, and in certain kinds of studies these may be combined. For example, the systems of land-use classification previously discussed (Sec. X F, G) are intended to provide backgrounds for agricultural regional geography and they involve, in outline, a major part of the regional study of any area. At the same time, however, they represent systematic studies of particular element-complexes in their world distribution, so that it is by no means clear whether they belong more in the one or the other of our two major divisions.

Finally, if one agrees that both regional and systematic studies are included as essential parts of geography, we may perhaps dismiss any question of relative importance as irrelevant. For systematic geography, regional studies provide, not merely a source of detailed factual information that otherwise would hardly be available, but they also indicate problems of relationships that might easily be overlooked in systematic geography, and they provide the final testing ground for the generic concepts and principles of systematic geography. On the other hand, it is even more obvious that progress in interpretation of the interrelated phenomena of regional geography is constantly dependent on the development of such universals by systematic studies. Any assumption that these studies can be left to the systematic sciences concerned with each particular category of phenomena has been shown by experience to be unwarranted. The aspects of these phenomena with which geography is concerned--their relation to other earth phenomena in different parts of the world--are not of direct concern to those systematic sciences and are more commonly left unstudied, unless geographers study them, as Lehmann has shown. Systematic geography, he therefore concludes, is not to be thought of as a border area of geography, or merely as a propaedeutic, but represents "organs vital to the growth of geography, without which its regional crowning can as little exist as a real tree without its roots" [113,236 f.].

Further, Lehmann suggests, the point of view developed in systematic geography is different from the general point of view in regional geography but at the same time of such value to it that every regional geographer should work productively in some systematic branch or branches (he recommends two or more). On the other hand, Penck, whose most notable contribution has no doubt been the systematic study of landforms, urges that "the cultivation of regional studies is indispensable for the geographer; they form for him the touchstone of his whole concept of geography, of his geographic system" [129, 639; cf. also Graf, 156, 82].

The mutual dependence of the two interconnected points of view in geography has been consistently maintained by Hettner from his earliest methodological treatment of more than forty years ago to the present time. The development of sound universal concepts in systematic geography is the essential basis for progress in regional geography, but since systematic geography is in method similar to the systematic sciences, "the geographer who works only in it and does not cultivate regional geography runs the risk of leaving the ground of geography entirely. He who does not understand regional geography is no true geographer. While regional geography alone, without systematic geography, is incomplete, it remains geographic; systematic geography without regional geography cannot fulfill the full function of geography and easily falls out of geography" [142, 22f.].

We may assume, therefore, that there is plenty of work to be done in the field of geography by both methods of approach. It is not for any student specializing in either approach to speak with scorn or condescension of those who are working in the other. "Differences of approach," as Kroeber suggests, "are probably at bottom largely dependent on differences of interest in individuals" [116, 569]. Paraphrasing his statement further, we may conclude that it is perfectly legitimate to confine one's interest to the specific approach of systematic geography, or to the integrating approach of regional geography, or to use alternately one or the other according to occasion. But sympathetic tolerance is intrinsically desirable and certainly advantageous to understanding: to scientia.

Hartshorne, Richard. 1939. The Nature of Geography. Lancaster, Penn.: Association of American Geographers. © 1939 Association of American Geographers. Reprinted with permission.

CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION: THE NATURE OF GEOGRAPHY