Smith N - History and Philosophy of Geography - Real Wars, Theory Wars.pdf

8/14/2019 Smith N - History and Philosophy of Geography - Real Wars, Theory Wars.pdf

1/16

http://phg.sagepub.com

Progress in Human Geography

DOI: 10.1177/0309132592016002081992; 16; 257Prog Hum GeogrNeil Smith

History and philosophy of geography: real wars, theory wars

http://phg.sagepub.comThe online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Progress in Human GeographyAdditional services and information for

http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

1992 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on February 20, 2008http://phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/16

257-

Historyand

philosophyof

geography:real wars, theory warsNeil Smith

Department of Geography, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903,USA

I GIS uberAlles

The war against Iraq in 1990-91 was the first full-scale GIS war. It put geography on thepublic agenda in a quite palpable if impalatable way as it claimed an estimated 200 000Iraqi lives (Bamaby, 1991 ) . The Defense MappingAgency and the National Oceano-graphic andAtmospheric Research Laboratory provided the digitized map data for theDesert Shield operating area; a California company supplied the ruggedized DOS-basedsoftware called Map, Operator, Maintenance Station (MOMS); the pilots slotted theresulting portable GIS (Geographic Information Systems) packages into cockpit com-puters, and the turkey-shoot, as a USA general called it, was on (Schulman, 1991). Geo-smart bombs were not only programmed to seek and destroy real-life targets but tophotograph them as they did so. On the ground, tank commanders picked their waythrough the desert using smart, 3-D simulations of the terrain ahead.And the globalcitizens of CNN (Cable News Network) were treated to map-rich battle simulations

throughout the perverse extravaganza thanks to GIS software and techniques similar tothose guiding missiles and artillery. Certainly, applying advanced GIS and relatedtechnologies to the conflict in the Persian Gulf substantially increased the missionseffectiveness and contributed to the safety of military personnel, enthused one GISer(Schulman, 1991: 28-29). Thus did GIS and related technologies contribute to the killingfields of the Iraqi desert.The development of sophisticated computerized cartographic technology has, in the last

year, definitively altered the way in which modem warfare is fought and staged and the way

it is consumed by a global public transformed into video voyeurs. By comparison,academic advocacy of GIS seems deliriously detached. In a recent editorial Openshawcomplains that GIS is misunderstood and underloved. GIS matters, he thunders,because it can encapsulate (some might say imprison) the core of geography! (Openshaw,1991: 622). Geography suffers a crisis of fragmentation and only GIS can put it all backtogether again; only GIS can offer an emerging all-embracing implicit framework capableof integrating and linking all levels of past, present, and possible future geographies(p. 628). Its application-independent tool-kits transform the discipline: Suddenly,

http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/http://phg.sagepub.com/


3/16

258

geography looks like a huge integrated GIS on which various nondata layers of inter-

pretative [sic.] subjectivity have been built (pp. 624; 627). He is astounded at the

implications of all this. A geographer of the impending new order may well be able to

analyse river networks on Mars on Monday, study cancer in Bristol on Tuesday, map theunderclass of London on Wednesday, analyse groundwater flow in theAmazon basin on

Thursday, and end the week by modelling retail shoppers in LosAngeles on Friday. Whatof it? Indeed, this is only the beginning (p. 624). With increasing geographic information,he enthuses, the utility of soft and so-called intensive and squelchy-soft qualitativeresearch paradigms could fade into insignificance (p. 622). Openshaws grandiose exuber-ance for a new geographic order is buttressed by a platitudinous morality: Is there not amoral duty, he asks, to help society and the world to unlock and understand the keypatterns and relationships that may exist encrypted in these data bases for individualcountries, for planet earth, and later on for other planets and other universes? (p. 625).Such extravagant ambition for GIS, on and off the battlefield, should at least help to

provoke a debate that has been bubbling under the surface since the mid-1980s. TheMessianic disciplinary hopes often attached to GIS denote a technocratic turn accordingto Taylor (1990), a retreat from ideas to facts, and a return of the very worst sort of

positivism, a most naive empiricism. The late J. B. Harley (1989: 2), in a widely readdeconstruction of cartography, addressed a similar point: As they embrace computer-assisted methods and Geographical Information Systems, the scientistic rhetoric of mapmakers is becoming more strident. Associated claims for a new geography, Taylorargues, are inimical to the field insofar as they feign an intellectual neutrality in the

interpretation of data. Such a geography would be defined by its application-independenttechniques rather than by any substantive concern with specific aspects of space, natureand landscape.There is surely no question but that GIS provides a battery of sophisticated computer

techniquesof wide and variable

utility.The

problem, rather,lies in the outlandish

disciplinary ambitions, the radical exclusion of other perspectives, and the dangerous and

self-defeating renunciation of an intellectual (as opposed to technical) agenda that toooften accompany the programatic advocacy of GIS.As Taylor (1990) suggests, mostGISers have by-passed the 1970s critiques of positivism, simply ignoring any broaderquestions of social and political context. Openshaw and the Iraq war notwithstanding, theGIS hoopla has cooled even as GIS techniques have become less exotic, and the time isripe for a critical and contextual history of GIS beyond existing internalist treatments(Chrisman, 1988; Coppock, 1988; Tomlinson, 1988; but seeAnderson, 1969).That the text and context of GIS is heavily underwritten by a military agenda is no

secret, of course, but such connections - too often made in the abstract - became brutally

evident on our television screens in early 1991.A considerable percentage of students wholearn GIS in USA classrooms graduate to military and related jobs; the Defense MappingAgency with 9000 employees is the single largest employer of USA geography graduates.Despite the fact that many of the techniques, their applications, and the resulting maps areclassified by governments around the world, there is a curious lack of reflection on this

military-geographic connection. Where such a connection does emerge, the mode isusually pedagogic rather than reflective. In a recentAustralian textbook on defenceapplications of GIS - a text incidentally that should cure even the most ardent devotees ofself-flagellation concerning the irrelevance of geography - Ball and Babbage make thepoint very directly: A GIS offers a unique and invaluable solution to the demand forgeographical information, both physical and human, generated by the new focus of



4/16

259

Australian defence planning (Ball and Babbage, 1989: 1). The book carries a preface fromthe Minister of State for Defence, Kim Beazley, who argues that a comprehensivegeographic information system is vital to the development of a national defence capability(Ball and Babbage, 1989: xxix).Technology does not cause war, of course, but the traditional liberal argument that

techniques are separate and separable from their uses, is equally simplistic. On the onehand, integration with the military is often deliberately fostered: The benefits [of GIS] willnot, however, flow automatically into the Defence organization. The corporate develop-ment ofDefence GIS is deserving of early high-level attention (Ball and Babbage, 1989: 7,242). On the other hand, even among more liberal advocates, embarrassed into silence bythe integration of GIS with military agendas, there is a clear sense of the larger social andmoral imperative of GIS.According to Worrall (1990: 1), the success of GIS will dependon the extent to which the array of techniques and technology are practically applied andtheir successfulness in making social decision-making processes better, stronger and moreaccessible.... GIS is a tool of considerable promise and potential to public policy-making. It is hardly credible, then, that the rest of this survey of developments andapplications fails even to mention military uses of GIS (see also Goodchild, 1991).GIS elevates to a new height the military constructions of geography, and this needs to

be opened up for critical and historical investigation. Denis Wood makes this point withrare pithiness:

computer graphics are in the service above all else of the military, and secondarily automobile manufacturing whereCAD/CAM systems play important roles in the destruction and marginalization of millions of jobs.... That is,computer graphics mainly promote death, either directly, through the support of weapons systems, or indirectly,through the use and production of cars (in the United States cars kill more people between the ages of 1 and 37 thanmost other causes combined) (Wood, 1989: 118-19).

In this light, and especially given the brutal GIS war against Iraq, Openshaws appeal to amoral duty to help society seems perversely disingenuous.

IIl Geography, war, history

An old saw has it that war is good for geography. Or as Yves Lacoste (1976) put it someyears ago: La geographie, ga sert, dabord, a faire la guerre, a title that might be translatednot at all literally as Geography, thy name is war. The connection is longstanding (USNaval Institute, 1958; OSullivan and Miller, 1983; Pepper and Jenkins, 1985), but was

publicly exposed with the recent war. Wars, cold or hot, observes Raskin (1991: 514),change the political maps of the world and blow away the ideologies that created andwere created by those maps. In this latest war for a new (American) world order, even

George Bush was given to geographic pronouncements, albeit in the negative. In hisaddress to the US Congress on March 6, 1991, Bush began with the following declaration:Weve learned in the modem age, geography cannot guarantee security and security doesnot come from military power alone. It is no accident that this beyond-geography themerecalls the political realism of the late 1940s and 1950s when the first new world order wasmeant to begin. Bushs new world order represents a second try at 1945 - the effort at anewAmerican century as Bush has put it - this time without Soviet opposition. In therecent tomes ofmedia commentary on the new world order it has been entirely missed thatGerman refugee geographers from Nazism were the crucial conduit for translating Hitlersneue Welt Ordnung into English-language usage. Specifically, Hans Weigert concludedhis popular (1942) book Generals and geographers - devoted to explaining German



5/16

260

geopolitics to anAmerican audience - with a precold war plea that the second world warallies develop their own geopolitical vision for the postwar world: The people of North

America now have a last chance to learn in time the lessons of a humanized geopolitics.These lessons will direct us to a structure of a new world order in which the social,

economic, and political systems of the East [Russia and China] and the North [led by

Britain] will harmonize with our own institutions (Weigert, 1942: 258, emphasis added).George Bushs circumspection about the uses of geography did not go unchallenged

however. The conservative New York Times columnistA.M. Rosenthal admonished Bush

to have done with such inane simplifications and to recognize the errors inAmericanambivalence toward geography. Such ambivalence, he argued, may have to do with the

countrys own geographic position, its isolation from Europe, and the fact that no foreignwars have been fought on its soil since 1812. After this promising start, Rosenthal mooteda geographic determinist apology for Israeli strategy in southwest Asia (the middle east, inEurocentric parlance). Blythely disenfranchising the entire Jordanian citizenry with a short

clickety-clack of his keyboard, Rosenthal argued that Jordan already was a Palestinian stateand that Palestinians should go back there. Israeli leaders and especially Israeli comman-

ders, he said, learned from the war the importance of a strategy based on geographicroom (Rosenthal, 1991:A31). The horrifying parallels to Nazi claims apparently escapedRosenthal entirely, but the advocacy of an Israeli Lebensraum and forced transportation tothe east surely evoked shivers among Palestinians, and should have inspired disgust fromconcentration camp survivors.

The military uses of geographic knowledge are as old as war itself, of course, and

integrally related to state-building and imperial pursuit. Good critical and contextualworks on the history of ancient geography are rare, and so the recent book by Sorbonnehistorian Claude Nicolet, Space, geography and politics in the early Roman Empire (11999 ), .was eagerly awaited. In a somewhat polemical intervention in antiquarian debates over the

originand evolution of the Roman

Empire,Nicolet seeks to redress the historicist

assumptions and the erasure of geography that have dominated classics research. In

sometimes excruciating detail, he traces the dialectic ofRoman conquest, the extension ofRoman geographical knowledge, and the mapping of the known world. He focuses on two

spatial texts: first, the Res gestae compiled by CaesarAugustus (first Roman Emperor),published posthumously inAD 14, and including a comprehensive summary of geo-graphical conquests and the results of military surveys; and secondly,Agrippas detailed

map of the known world which was posted several years earlier near the Forum. Just at thetime when the Empire was being consolidated underAugustus, argues Nicolet, geographycomes to play an unprecedented influence over history. He is comfortable with the ideathat cartography and the representation of space are highly political enterprises, and yet

the textual deconstruction is in other ways very traditional. He sees the accretion ofgeographical knowledge in pre-Kuhnian progressivist terms and is keen to celebrate

Augustus andAgrippa as alternative geographic heroes.Nicolets book delivers only a sliver of the promise suggested by its title. For all but the

most ardent classicists, thirsty for textual disquamation of the early Roman Emp:ire, amuch better introduction to the military importance of ancient geographical ideas and

practices can be found in Dvomiks Origins of intelligence services, a not so recent bookdedicated to General William Donovan, founder of the OSS (the US Organization of

Strategic Services - precursor to the CIA). Dvomiks is a broad perspective, stretchingfrom theAssyrians, Hittites and Egyptians, through the Greeks and Romans, to the

Byzantine and Muslim worlds (Dvomik, 1974). For its unobtrusive assumption of



6/16

261

geography imbricated in military history, it is a fascinating read, informative, accessible,and useful in the classroom.

Overlapping historically with Dvomik is Pryors (1988) consideration of geography,technology and war in the establishment of the Mediterranean world between the seventhand sixteenth centuries. Influenced by theAnnales School, and especially by Braudel,

Pryor argues that the struggles between Christendom, Islam and Byzantium were foughton, around, and about the sea, involving a crucial nexus of geography, technology and war.In the last analysis, he says, geography, technology and the forms of war had highlyinfluential effects on the general evolution of Mediterranean history (Pryor, 1988: 199).

Christendom won, of course, and with it capitalism, and the rest, we might say, is

geography. From the hearth of Europe - as we are now well aware with the pending 1992

quincentennial - an unprecedented drove of explorations, expeditions and discoveries wasunleashed upon an unsuspecting world, and the emergence ofmodem geography, dividedinto national schools, was intricately bound up with such adventures. There was a mixedtone to this work. In the scientific construction of global space, empire and the

geographical elsewhere, Europeans scrambled both to learn from and to surpass therecorded knowledge of the Greeks and Romans as well as laterArab thinkers (Sezgin,1987; Wamtz, 1989). In France, such exponents included Jean-Baptiste-BourguignondAnville who reconstructed a Mimoire sur lEgypte ancienne et moderne based, not on field

experience but on maps, travel descriptions, cadastral records and other documentsavailable from the libraries of Paris (Godlewska, 1989). Entwined with these scientificconstructions were direct descriptions associated with the Napoleonic and later expedi-tions to Egypt andAlgeria, in which geography would assist the state in determining thenature and usefulness of conquered races and places (Godlewska, 1989: 205; see also

Godlewska, 1988; 1991; Taylor, 1989). The resulting amalgam of ideology and technol-

ogy offered by geographical writers of the day is increasingly subject to intense scrutiny bycontemporary critics in a

varietyof

disciplines,much of it taking off from Saids (19978)

classic Orientalism.

The practice of geography has not only contributed to the conduct of war and imperialexpansion but is influenced by it. The first International Geographical Congress wasscheduled for Brussels in 1870 but had to be delayed until the following year because ofthe Franco-Prussian war. In the first half of the twentieth century, the history of theInternational Geographical Union was dogged by two world wars and the in-again, out-

again status of German geography (R6ssler, 1990a).At the most recent 1988 IGU

Congress in Sydney, it was reported that some highly sensitive maps of the remote,Himalayan borderlands between China and India, reluctantly brought to the Congress and

displayed by the Chinese delegation, were stolen.

Regarding geography andwar

in Germany, meanwhile, the continuing excavation of theNazi years continues to uncover new layers of geographic involvement. In her Wissenschaftund Lebensraum, R6ssler ( 1990b) gives the fullest account yet available of the way in whicha battery of geographers contributed to Nazi planning for Germanization of the easternborderlands. In a discussion of the institutions, ideologies and individuals involved,Rbssler shows that after 1933 many geographers were able to apply existing researchinterests to the practical problems of establishing a Lebensraum for the German Reich.Their work involved planning as well as research, although the loss of the war preventedthe implementation of these plans and at the Nuremberg trials, for that reason, it wasdecided not to proceed with prosecutions (see also R6sler, 1989). Nonetheless, as Ros~;lerand her co-worker Gerhard Sandner emphasize, the involvement of geographers should



7/16

262

not be dismissed as an aberration. The discipline itselfunderwent a significant transforma.-tion. Sandner (1990) traces the emergence of anti-semitism in German geography prior to1933, and Fischer and Sandner (1991) analyse the way in which the geography seminar aftHamburg was transformed under the influence of Siegfried Passarge, an avowed and activeNazi.

Joining geography and history these days can be a perilous pursuit, as the naive:,politically motivated proclamations of Bush and Rosenthal illustrate. The reassertion ofgeography in historical analysis has brought increasingly public hints, generally fromoutside the field, of a new geographic determinism. The prominent economist ThomasSowell of the Hoover Institution, for example, in a televised talk in December 1990 to the

right-wing think-tank, theAmerican Enterprise Institute, explained European dominancevis-a-visAfrica as the result of geography: although half the size ofAfrica, Europe has alonger coastline, nowhere in Europe is more than 500 miles from the sea, and Europeunlike Africa had excellent navigable waterways. The popular appeal of such simplistic andanti-intellectual determinism is usually expressed to the detriment of oppressed peoples.The left is not immune from this determinism, which is in many ways the reverse side of

historicism, so ubiquitous in the English-speaking world.As Nicolets (1991) stud.yreminds us, however, French historical and social writing has often involved a morefrequent integration of spatial concepts. It was Lucien Febvre, founder with Marc Bloch oftheAnnales School, who admonished, Historians, be geographers.And it was FernandBraudel, who dominated the second generation (1945-68) ofAnnalistes, who took thisadvice seriously enough to write what he called geo-history.A recent history of the

Annales School summarizes some of the obvious links between Vidal de la Blache, Febvre

and Braudel, but also suggests Friedrich Ratzels influence on Braudel. In melding Vidals

possibilist, place-rooted regionalism with a more structural conception of historicalchange, Braudel spawns a geographical determinism, according to Burke (1990: 36-40;

see alsoArcher 1990). Burkes is a very straightforward and not especially probing accountof theAnnales School, but the indictment of geographical determinism is reasonable as faras it goes (see also Kinser, 1981).A more nuanced disentanglement of Braudelsdeterminism from his appropriate recentring of geography remains to be done.

IIIl Modern geography: science of space, science of nature

Traditional histories of science often fasten on a particular figure - Copernicus or Galileo,Newton or Bacon - as symbolizing the inauguration ofmodem scientific thought, but theDutch historian of science Reijer Hooykaas has countered that we should more aptly see

Prince Henry the Navigator as prompting the scientific revolution (Hooykaas, 1979).Drawing on the work of Hooykaas and other contemporary historians of science, David

Livingstone, who has devoted considerable effort to clarifying the social and intellectualorigins ofmodem geography, argues that geographical progress has been seen, of late, as asignificant ingredient in the emergence of modem science (Livingstone, 1990: 364). Onthe fulcrum between empirical observation and more traditional, authoritarian cosmol~o-gies, driven by exploration and discovery on the one side and by the conceptual demandsof natural theology on the other, geography in the fifteenth through seventeenth centuriessat at the splinter point where science separated itself from philosophy. Livingstoneexplores the resulting tangle of religious, magical, scientific and practical themes thatdominated geography on the cusp ofmodem scientific thought.



8/16

263

Corroborative testimony comes from Wamtzs (1989) posthumously published study ofVarenius.Among scholars now claimed as geographers, the German scholar BernhardVareniuss (1622-50), with his Geographia generalis, is widely credited with initiating thestudy ofmodem geography. Wamtz (1989) emphasizes Vareniuss intellectual context and

evolution; he practised geography as a branch of mixed [applied] mathematics (Warntz,

1989: 172), and his book went through successive editions including several edited byIsaac Newton. Wamtzs originality lies in revealing Geographia generalis as a sharplycontested text (in mathematics and philosophy) between Cartesian and Newtonian visions ofthe world. The division of natural and social sciences from mathematics and philosophywas only stirring, of course, and so it was a stipulation of the Lucasian Professorship ofMathematics and Natural Philosophy at Cambridge University in the seventeenth centurythat lectures in geography be presented. Sufficiently indistinct and novel was geography asa separate field of study that in the 1650s, following his death, Varenius was known in theNetherlands, where the Geographia generalis was first published, as THE Geographer(Warntz, 1980: 174).The separation of geography from cosmology and astronomy, philosophy and mathe-

matics was a historical process, and Kant, like Varenius is treated as a watershed figure.His broadly Newtonian conception of space, if not his geographical writing, is subject tocontinual philosophical commentary (e.g., Waschkies, 1987), and in geographical circlesthere has been a revival of interest in Kant. Published responses to the reflective discussion

of Hartshornes work, 50 years after the publication of The nature of geography (Entrikinand Brunn, 1989), vary considerably: Gould (1991) affirms the unacknowledged neo-Kantian subtext of Hartshomian and related geographies while asking in frustration whyso much effort was expended on The nature, a text that is virtually meaningless to most of

todays geographers; Livingstone ( 1991 ) takes a more elliptical perspective, affirming theneed for contextual histories of geography but questioning whether geography even has anature; in response Entrikin ( 1991 ) reaffirms the validity of assessing Hartshornes work,and with it the potential richness of the Kantian and the neo-Kantian tradition for

geography (p. 338).Whereas absolutist Newtonian conceptions of space have been under increasing attack

in geography since the late 1960s, GIS, whether or not contaminated by nondata layers of

interpretative subjectivity (Openshaw, 1991: 627), reinstates a mordant Newtonianism of

space. By contrast, the legal field seems to be on the verge of discovering the idea of post-Newtonian relational space. In a pathbreaking article, Laurence Tribe (1989) argues that

legal conceptions of space - indeed the eighteenth century spatiality of the USAConstitution itself - are thoroughly Newtonian. Legal doctrine is largely blind to the ideathat social and juridical space is socially produced and that, further, the very process of

judicial observation alters the social space it would adjudicate. There isa

social geometryof law, Tribe insists, and it is a curved space in which neither individuals, private propertynor the state should be seen as discrete billiard balls on a given social table, but rather asthemselves progenitors of space.The curvature of geographical space is now so readily accepted as not to seem odd at

all. Generalizing from earlier work suggesting the transformation of space-time relationsconsonent with contemporary restructurings of capitalist social and economic relations,Harvey (1990) explores the reflexive and contested character of conceptions of space andtime, and calls for a historical geography of these concepts. Kirby (1989) delineates a

political space that is equally curved, while the supposed centrality of space in

postmodernism suggests an extradisciplinary acknowledgement of the curvature of social



9/16

264

space. Becker (1990) imports postmodernism into the rigid confines of German geog-raphy. Henri Lefebvre (1991) truly was the pioneer in much of this work. But the shiftfrom absolute to relative and relational conceptions of space is a highly uneven process: theredoubt of GIS aside, an ambivalent confusion of absolute and relative conceptions ofspace also informed the push for locality studies.A similar conceptual struggle is played

out in the debate between Meyrowitz (1985; 1989) and Kirby (1988; 1989; 1990). WhereMeyrowitz argues the destruction of territoriality at the hands ofmodem communications

technology, Kirby sees the resilience of localities and champions a defence and reassertionof regional identity. That both processes may be going on concurrently seems very likely,but it leaves us with the conceptual dilemma of how to articulate this. Marstons (1990)and Herods (1991) discussions of the social production of scale may intimate someanswers.

Insofar as geography has traditionally seen itself as a science of nature as well as of space,physical geography has come to dominate the discussion of nature, human geographyrelinquishing significantly the interrogation of nature in favour of space (FitzSimmons,1989). Histories of physical geography are not so common and critical and contextualhistories even less so, which is perhaps surprising given the political uses of much physicalgeographical knowledge (but see Bork, 1989). Nowhere has this been more true than inNorthAmerica. John Wesley Powell and Grove Karl Gilbert are widely seen as originatorsof USA geomorphology, and as much as they were concerned with exploring a newscience, they both did their most prominent and sustained work in the employ of various

government surveys between the 1860s and 1880s. Sacks (1991) recent discussion ofGilbert focuses, quite reasonably, on breaking down the sharp dichotomy that is oftendrawn between the empirical, pragmatic, process-oriented Gilbert and the theoretical,form-oriented Davis, and only hints at the connection between an emerging physicalgeography and a national agenda for theAmerican west in the late nineteenth century. The

storyremains to be told of the

wayin which

physical geography providedan environmental

technology and ideology for building a nation.This connection between physical geography and national interests in state building

surfaces in strange ways. In the 1880s there emerged a quite torrid debate betweenCanadian and USA geologists over the nu ming and interpretation of the Huroniansystem. The Huronian system of rocks lit s beneath the Cambrian surfaces of theCanadian Shield but above the Laurentian, al j exists not just in Canada but in parts of thenorthern USA. V iitiam Eagan (1989) recon tructs the geological debate, which involvedthe fledgeling Canadian Survey and US Geological Survey as well as local geologicaltraditions in the USA.At odds was whether the Huronian System was indeed a separateformation worthy of its own name; the Canadians argued that it was a discrete system

while the USA geologists largely but not entirely opposed this. In the ensuing debate, notonly questions of scientific reputations, but national ownership of mineral rights, andquestions of national identity were at stake.The public battle that emerged in 1991 in response to the Smithsonian Institutions

refreshingly revisionist interpretation of the nineteenth century frontier, The west asAmerica, suggests the extent to which mythologies of nature embody national and politicalambitions. Critiquing the conventional wisdom of the glorious frontier, the Smithsonianexhibit revealed the unsavory or equivocal or simply mundane aspects of the conquest ofthe west, reinterpreting the frontier experience in less heroic and arguably more realisticterms (Truettner, 1991). Certainly the brutality to nature and humanity was acknowl-edged, if often in a hectoring tone. The exhibit was quickly pilloried by the Repub~lican



10/16

265

Senator Stevens fromAlaska, who threatened to cut off funding to the Smithsonian a:ndpromised close Congressional scrutiny to ensure the patriotic correctness of futureexhibits. Daniel Boorstien, previously the Librarian of Congress and in 1953 an informantto the House Un-AmericanActivities Committee, attacked the exhibit as a perverse,historically inaccurate, destructive exhibit.A quick symbol in the witchhunt over political

correctness,the exhibit became cause clbre for the

right,and its scheduled

appearancesin

Denver and St. Louis were cancelled. The Powell expedition of 1871 figured significantlyin the exhibit.

Much as geography played a pivotal role in the scientific revolutions that initiated

modernism, assumed conceptions of nature - social and nonsocial - play a definitive partin the political construction of modernism. Nature is simultaneously held separate fromsociety yet operates also as a template for social subjects, social change and socialstructure. Critiques of modem science therefore involve radically restructured treatmentsof nature, most explicitly a recognition of the social production of nature (Smith, 1990),or the reinvention of nature as Haraway suggests (1991; see also 1989) or, as in

Torgovnick (1990: 193), a critique of primitivism. Whether the reinvention of nature leads

to an essentially postmodern idea of wilderness suitable for the age of ecology(Oelschlaeger, 1991), or to a recontextualization that takes more seriously the trenchantsocial materialism ofmodem science, as Haraway does, remains to be seen.

IV Gender wars?

Less than a decade ago emergent feminist writing focused on attempts to develop theory,concerned that feminist theory might be a misnomer (Hartsock, 1983). Today by contrast,feminist theory is increasingly pivotal across a swath of social discourse and debates; incultural studies and literary criticism, arguably, it now defines more of the innovativefrontier research than competing approaches. This is not to say that various crustyorthodoxies have given up; quite the opposite, especially given the reactionary indictmentof a political correctness supposedly dominating academia (Robbins, 1991). Nor hasintellectual eminence been greeted with institutional permanence, and geography is nodifferent from other sciences in this regard (Kass-Simon and Fames, 1990). Whereas in

1970, 6.3% of AAG members in academic positions were female, that figure rose to only8.4% in 1988. Nor has the pyramidal structure of womens involvement been alteredsignificantly: the percentage ofwomen tapers down as one climbs the ranks. Whereas 27%of PhD graduates in the USA were women in 1988, only 3.1 % of full professors - a metre18 - were women. Sociology, by contrast, is 20% female, but although 9% of full

professorsare

women,women are even more

heavily clumpedin the untenured

positionsthan in geography (Lee, 1990). In different national contexts, the figures are in alllikelihood even more skewed. Even more alarming is the apparent lack of influence of (orcredit accorded to) those women who have secured an academic position. In his discussionof master weavers of influence, Bodman ( 1991 ) finds only three women among the 117centurion geographers who were cited more than a hundred times between 1984 and1988. The gendered language would seem apt. Whatever the inevitable limitations of thiskind of study (see Thomthwaite, 1961 for a brawling satire), the documentation ofextreme gender inequalities alone was worth the work, even if Bodman mentions it only in

passing.The history of women in geography is hardly a bustling pursuit (but see McManis,



11/16

266

1990), but the pace has picked up with the publication of a series of books focusing onwomen travellers and explorers in the nineteenth century (Birkett, 1989; Tinling, 1989;Middleton, 1982). This has led Mona Domosh (1991) to propose a feminist historiogra-phy of geography that connects these historical accounts and experiences to contempor;aryfeminism and social theory. Closely related are explorations ofgender and postcolonialism

(Lazreg,1988;

Mohanty, 1989; Rao, 1991)and

introspections concerningrace and

gender (Sanders, 1990; Cohen, 1990; Mitchell and Smith, 1990). Similar questions havebeen raised from a somewhat different point of view as Mary Louise Pratt (1986)investigates more traditional geographic and exploration texts to expose the class, race andgender assumptions involved in constructing colonial geographies. Meanwhile JaniceMonk (1989) has initiated a long-term archival investigation of the history of women. in

American geography.New ideas and approaches usually have to struggle their way into the academic

mainstream, all the more so when they embody explicitly oppositional politics express:inglarger social movements. In geography the recognition of feminist work over the lastdecade has been inordinately slow and partial, leading to intensified frustration. This has

been expressed in particularly visceral fashion not so much against the liberal andconservative mainstream, from whom perhaps feminists expect little, but against Marxism- especially among responses to Harveys The condition of postmodernity and, to a lesserextent, Sojas Postmodern geographies, both widely read and discussed outside as well asinside geography. These authors have been justly criticized for not taking feminist workseriously (Deutsche, 1991; Massey, 1991; Rose, 1991) and, in Harveys case, forsystematically misconstruing the work of feminist artists. Beyond sexism, however, theseresponses also allege a more thorough-going recidivism: foundationalism, universalis:m,materialism, idealism, determinism, economism, totalism, stucturalism, > hetero-

sexism, modernism, objectivism, realism, essentialism, and voyeurism all comingleand intertwine with sexism, especially in Harveys text, we are told.

The drift of Masseys argument is toward a feminized, more integrative sociospatialdiscourse, a project already taken on board by numerous feminists: Bondi (1990a; 199Cb),Katz ( 1991 ), McDowell ( 1991 ), Marston (1990), Pratt and Hanson (1988), Rose (1990),to suggest only a few. For Deutsche ( 1991 ), on the other hand, something else is at sta.ke.Intertwined with the feminist critique, but distinguishable from it, is a considerable

departure from the social materialist assumptions that have guided most of the rapproc.he-ment between spatial and social discourses in the last two decades. [T]he real question,Deutsche insists, is this: what is being protected by resistance to feminist inquiry? The

implied answer is given visually and verbally: using a Barbara Kruger graphic, she suggestthat You molest from afar (Deutsche, 1991: 9), and she writes that violence is enacted byauthors who

speakand

pretendthat

reality speaksfor itself

(p. 12).For Deutsche and

other critics it is a question of the politics of representation (p. 21) which, she argues,requires a focus on discursive practices and the requirement that authors and art:istsreflect critically and openly on their own activities in meaning production (p. 22).While neither innocent nor excusable, neither is the avoidance of feminism necessa:rily

the malevolent psychosocial contrivance that Deutsche implies. To argue such would be torisk replacing one supposed foundationalism with another, and indeed there are sugg;es-tions of this in Deutsches argument. Harvey, she says, repeatedly represents difference as

sameness, ignoring feminisms difference from other social analyses, its internal differ-ences, and its theories of difference (Deutsche, 1991: 7). But how then is significantdifference to be identified and who is to do it? (Pratt, 1991). In fact, throughout her

critique, Deutsche herself claims a self-unexamined authorial authority rooted in feminism



12/16

267

to arbitrate the distinctions between difference and sameness. But these distinctions are

socially contested on a wider terrain. More generally, Deutches rejection ofHarvey is itselfso total, the critique such a seamless whole, that it brooks no ambiguity in Harveys ownwork. Harveys text - decisive in places but quite vague in others - she conveys as a

universally brittle logic.Like the texts it critiques, Deutsches argument is also not innocent. The importance of

the politics of representation is now widely accepted, but Deutsches own representationof this politics deliberately effects a pragmatic disciplinary move that centres art histoiyand literary criticism in the discussion of society. Social science has hitherto been grantedautomatic privileges ... in the study of society, Deutsche asserts (1991: 21), and sheseeks to transfer this supposed privilege to aesthetic discourse and textual deconstruction.

Secondly, and related, Deutsche displays a deep ambivalence about any connectedness tomaterial reality. Reality and representation mutually imply each other, she concedes, but

only after a significant ontological redefinition: what is called reality - social meaning,relations, values, identities - is constituted in a complex of representations (p. 21).Accessto reality outside representations is effectively cut off and with it the ability to discuss

social experience except as representation. Reality is swallowed whole by representation:postmodernism is entertained as a kind of social change itself (p. 13), while the builtenvironment is now recognized, as other cultural objects have been, as representations(p. 18).All knowledge is representation, postmodernism has taught us, but Deutsche takes us

significantly beyond this claim that there is no reality without representation toward theidealist position that all we can study are representations as representations - no reality,only representation. The connection between representation and the represented is

erased, representation is increasingly unhinged from social experience. Hence the deliver-ate confusion in Deutsche of the violence perpetrated by theoretical omission in anacademic text and the physical cum psychic violence of warfare, international or familial.

Deutsche seems aware of where this analysis points, asserting that her position does notimply that no reality exists or that it is unknowable, and she asserts defensively at several

points that hers is a materialist analysis. Nor, she insists, does it involve a desertion ofthe field of politics (Deutsche, 1991: 21; 28). But these caveats highlight and contradi.cther own discursive practice which recentres a startlingly Kantian epistemological dilemmainsofar as access to social experience and the means to knowability are never explained. Itis significant, then, that Harveys central arguments - the interconnectedness of culturaland political change, and his placement of postmodernism as less an alternative tomodernism than the reassertion of a lost modernist assumption - are not directly engagedby Deutsche or, perhaps more disappointingly, by Massey whose previous work has soinfluenced political economic theories of local and regional change. It remains a collective

responsibility to consider these ideas seriously too.One can accept a feminist critique of Harvey without subscribing to the idealist critique.

Arguing that much postmodernist feminism retains a firm foot in modernism, SandraHarding (1990: 100) proposes that [Feminist inquiry can aim to produce less partial and

perverse representations without having to assert the absolute, complete, universal oreternal adequacy of these representations. Feminist epistemologies should be practisedas justificatory strategies (Harding, 1990: 100) which continually negotiate the need forsituated knowledges, continual self-reflection, and the direction of research. Hardingsadvocacy of principled ambiguity is especially useful, not so much as a means of

introducing some kind of political or epistemological relativism, but for interrogating the

overlappingand

intertwiningof

identities,different levels of

indeterminacyof

boundaries,



13/16

268

and for enhancing the connectedness of political struggles. In this vein, the most incisive

argument, I think, remains Hartsocks. Rather than exclude Marx, Hartsock (1987) arguesexplicitly that the privilege Marx accorded to the working class, by dint of its social

position, was real enough, but that other social groups possess comparable if differentprivilege. Exploitation and oppression do accord a certain privileged access to social

reality. This isnot

necessarilyan

essentialist argument; the essentialist move, accordingto Donna Haraway (1991: 158) comes with the elevation of this privilege and socialaccess to the level of ontology and, one might add, the refusal of negotiation betweenprivileges or the refusal to see privileged positions as intermeshed (Graham, 1990).The coalition of interests between feminism and postmodernism is pushed toward its

textual limits by Pred (1990) but is under increasing scrutiny (Hartsock, 1987; 1989;1991; Harding, 1990; Hekman, 1990). Bondi (1990a) expresses a cautious optimism that

postmodemism opens up spatial discourses for specifically feminist analysis, but also issuesa salient warning: Postmodernism may recognise the masculine bias of Western in-tellectual traditions, but it is accompanied by a preoccupation with gender symbolism atthe expense of &dquo;flesh and blood&dquo; women and men (see also McDowell, 1991; Pratt,

1991). Bondi argues instead for a more coherent focus on the social construction ofgender, a call answered in part by Jacksons (1991) analysis of the construction ofmasculinity. Grahams (1990) critique of essentialism also tries to incorporate feminist andpostmodemist perspectives with Marxism. Insofar as questions of class are erased in muchof the discussion around postmodernism and feminism - the white heterosexual western

male, undefined by class, is the new universal target - Bondis (1990b) and McDowells

( 1991 ) explicit arguments about reintegrating a class perspective are vital.One of the most thoughtful engagements between feminism, postmodernism and

Marxism comes from Iris Young (1990) who combines two rather unfashionableendeavours into something quite novel. She insists on retaining a reworked analysis ofdomination, oppression and exploitation as the basis of her politics of difference, andgrafts into it a more explicitly normative theory of social justice and political action.Abroader revival of interest in the professional ethics of research and geographicalrepresentation is also afoot (Curry, 1991; Harley, 1990; Kirby, 1991).

V Conclusion

As Bondi (1990a: 162) has argued, what postmodernism appears to do is to elide ratherthan deconstruct a dichotomybetween ideas and materiality. GIS practises a virtual imageof this elision insofar as representations substitute for reality (Harley, 1989), facilitatingthe

denial of military violence. From the perspective ofa

GIS technocrat, who praises GIStechnologies for their battlefield successes and for removing a lot of combat anxiety,there were statistically fewer (American) casualties in the war than would be expectedamong that same age group travelling by automobile on US highways (Schulman, 1991:25). But it is Jean Baudrillard, the French postmodernist, who best expresses and, whetherintentional or otherwise, exposes the complicity of technology and postmodern style in the

disappearance of the war. Deconstructing the media representation of the war, Bau-drillard (1991) concludes that La guerre du Golfe na pas eu lieu (the Gulf war didnt

happen).



14/16

269

Ac know ledgements

I am grateful to Sandra Luque, Cindi Katz, Don Mitchell and Fritz Nelson who allcontributed suggestions and ideas to this essay.

References

Anderson, J. 1969: Moral problems of remote sensingtechnology.Antipode 1, 54-57.

Archer, K.W. 1990: The theory and practice of re-

gional geography:A comparison of Vidalian andMarxian perspectives. PhD dissertation, Johns Hop-kins University.

Ball, D. and Babbage, R. 1989: Geographic Informa-tion Systems. Defence applications. Elmsford, NY:

Pergamon.

Barnaby, F. 1991: Theenvironmental

impactof the

Gulf War. The Ecologist 21 (4), 166-72.

Baudrillard, J. 1991: La guerre du Golfe. Na Pas eulieu. Paris: Editiones Galilee.

Becker, J. 1990: Postmodeme Modemisierung der

Sozialgeographie? Geographische Zeitschrift 78,15-23.

Birkett, D. 1989: Spinsters abroad: Victorian lady ex-

plorers. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bodman,A.R. 1991: Weavers of influence: the struc-

ture of contemporary geographic research. Transac-

tions, Institute of British Geographers 16, 21-37.

Bondi, L. 1990a: Feminism, postmodernism, and ge-

ography : Space for women?Antipode 22, 156-67. 1990b: Women, gender relations, and the inner city.

In Keith, M. and Rogers,A., editors, Hollow Prom-ises ? Rhetoric and reality in the inner city. London:

Mansell, 110-26.

Bork, K.B. 1989: Kirtley Fletcher Mather as geologistand political activist. Journal of Geological Education

37, 190-93.

Burke, P. 1990: The French historical revolution: the

Annales School 1929-89. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Chrisman, N.R. 1988: The risks of software innova-

tion : a case study of the Harvard Lab. The American

Cartographer 15, 291-300.Cohen, S. 1990: Geographic gender studies: fresh

approaches, but with integration. Professional Geogra-pher 42, 231-32.

Coppock, J.T. 1988: The analogue to digital revolu-tion : a view from an unreconstructed geographer.TheAmerican Cartographer 15, 263-75.

Curry, M. 1991: On the possibility of ethics in geog-raphy : writing, citing, and the construction of in-tellectual property. Progress in Human Geography 15,125-47.

Deutsche, R. 1991: Boys town. Environment and Plan-

ningD 9, 5-30.

Domosh, M. 1991: Toward a feminist historiographyof geography. Transactions, Institute of British Geogra-phers 16, 95-104.

Dvornik, F. 1974: Origins of intelligence services. Theancient near east, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, the

Arab Muslim empires, the Mongol empire, China, Mus-

covy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Eagan,W.E. 1989: The debate over

the CanadianShield, 1880-1905. ISIS 80, 232-53.

Entrikin, J.N. 1991: Reply.Annals of theAssociation ofAmerican Geographers 81, 337-39.

Entrikin, J.N. and Brunn, S., editors, 1989: Reflec-tions on Richard Hartshornes The nature of geography.Occasional Publication of theAssociation ofAmer-

ican Geographers, Washington, DC.

Fischer, H. and Sandner, G. 1991: Die Geschichte

des geographischen Seminars de Hamburger Uni-versitt im Dritten Reich. In Krause, E., Huber, L.

und Fischer, H., editors, Hochschulalltag im Dritten

Reich. Die Hamburger Universitt 1933-1945. Berlin:Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 1197-1222.

FitzSimmons, M. 1989: The matter of nature.Anti-

pode 21, 106-20.

Godlewska, A. 1988: The Napoleonic survey of

Egypt: a masterpiece of cartographic compilationand early nineteenth century fieldwork. Cartographica25, 1-171.

1989: Traditions, crisis, and new paradigms in therise of the modem French discipline of geography1760-1850. Annals of the Association ofAmerican

Geographers 79, 192-213.

1991: Linfluence dun homme sur la geographiefrancaise: Conrad Malte-Brun (1775-1826).Annales

de Geographie 558, 190-206.

Goodchild, M.F. 1991: Geographic information sys-tems. Progress in Human Geography 15, 194-200.

Gould, P. 1991: Reflections require a mirror.Annals oftheAssociation of American Geographers 81, 338-34.

Graham, J. 1990: Theory and essentialism in Marxist

geography.Antipode 22, 53-66.

Haraway, D.J. 1989: Primate visions: gender, race, and



15/16

270

nature in the world of modern science. New York:

Routledge. 1991: Simions, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of

nature. New York: Routledge.Harding, S. 1990: Feminism, science, and the anti-

enlightenment critiques. In Nicholson, L.J., editor,

Feminism/postmodernism. New York: Routledge,83-106.

Harley, J.B. 1989: Deconstructing the map, Cartogra-phica 26(2), 1-20.

1990: Cartography, ethics and social theory. Car-

tographica 27, 1-23.

Hartsock, N.C.M. 1983: Money, sex, and power. To-

ward a feminist historical materialism. Boston: North-eastern University Press.

1987: Rethinking modernism: minority and major-ity theories. Cultural Critique 7, 187-206.

Harvey, D. 1990: Between space and time: reflectionson the geographical imagination.Annals of theAsso-ciation of American Geographers 80, 418-34.

Hekman, S.J. 1990: Gender and knowledge. Elements ofa postmodern feminism. Boston: Northeastern Uni-

versity Press.

Herod,A. 1991: The production of scale in UnitedStates labour relations.Area 23, 82-88.

Hooykaas, R. 1979: Humanism and the voyages ofdiscovery in 16th century Portuguese science and letters.

Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.

Jackson, P. 1991: The cultural politics of masculinity:towards a social geography. Transactions, Institute ofBritish Geographers 16, 199-213.

Kass-Simon, G. and Farnes, P., editors, 1990:Women and science. Righting the record. Bloomington,IN: Indiana University Press.

Katz, C.R. 1991: Sow what you know: The struggle forsocial reproduction in rural Sudan.Annals of the

Association of American Geographers 81, 488-514.

Kinser, S. 1981:Annaliste paradigm? The geohistoricalstructuralism of F. Braudel,American Historical Re-

view 86, 63-105.

Kirby,A. 1988: Context, common sense and the realityof place: a critical reading of Meyrowitz. Journal forthe Theory ofSocial Behavior 18, 239-50.

1989:Time, space

and collectiveaction: politicalspace/political geography. Discussion paper, Depart-

ment of Geography and Regional Development,University ofArizona, Tucson,Arizona.

1990: Chevy Novas and Toyota Toyolettes: De-

fending the region from the generalized elsewhere.

Journal of the Southwest 32, 479-90. 1991: On ethics and power in higher education.

Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 75-77.

Lacoste, Y. 1976: La geographie, a sert, dabord, fairela guerre. Paris: Maspero.

Lazreg, M. 1988: Feminism and difference: the perilsof writing as a woman on women inAlgeria. FeministStudies 14, 81-107.

Lee, D.R. 1990: The status of women in geography:

Things change, things remain the same. ProfessionalGeographer 42, 202-11.

Lefebvre, H. 1991: The production of space. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

Livingstone, D.N. 1990: Geography, tradition and thescientific revolution: an interpretative essay. Transac-

tions, Institute of British Geographers 15, 359-73. 1991: Does geography have a nature? The di-

lemmas of a definition.Annals of theAssociation ofAmerican Geographers 81, 334-37.

Marston, S. 1990: Who are the people? Gender,citizenship and the making of theAmerican nation.Environment and PlanningD 8, 449-58.

Massey, D. 1991: Flexible sexism. Environment and

PlanningD 9: 31-57.

McDowell, L. 1991: The baby and the bathwater:

diversity, deconstruction and feminist theory in geog-raphy. Geoforum 22, 123-33.

McManis, D.R. 1990: The editorial legacy of GladysM. Wrigley. Geographical Review 80, 169-81.

Meyrowitz, J. 1985: No sense of place. New York:Oxford University Press.

1989: The generalized elsewhere. Critical Studies inMass Communication 6, 326-33.

Middleton, D. 1982: Victorian lady travellers. Chicago:Chicago University Press.

Mitchell, O. and Smith, N. 1990: Bringing in race.

Professionalgeographers 42,232-33.

Mohanty, C. 1989: Under western eyes: Feminist

scholarship and colonial discourses. Feminist Review30, 61-88.

Monk, J. 1989: Women geographers and geographicinstitutions, 1900-1950. Paper presented at the

AAG conference, Baltimore.

Nicolet, C. 1991: Space, geography, and politics in theearly Roman Empire.AnnArbor: University of Michi-gan Press.

Oelschlaeger, M. 1991: The idea of wilderness. From

prehistoryto the

age of ecology. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Openshaw, S. 1991:A view on the GIS crisis in

geography, or, using GIS to put Humpty-Dumptyback together again. Environment and PlanningA 23,621-8.

OSullivan, P. and Miller, J.W. Jr. 1983: The geog-raphy of warfare. New York: St. Martins Press.

Pepper, D. and Jenkins,A., editors, 1985: The geog-raphy of peace and war. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Pratt, G. 1991: Feminist politics: the danger of differ-



16/16

271

ence, the place of geography. Paper presented at theannual meeting of theAssociation ofAmerican Ge-

ographers, Miami.

Pratt, G. and Hanson, S. 1988: Gender, class and

space. Environment and Planning D 6, 15-35.

Pratt, M.L. 1986: Scratches on the face of the country;

or, what Mr. Barrow saw in the land of the bushmen.

In Gates, H.L., editor, Race, writing, and difference.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pred,A. 1990: In other wor(I)ds: fragmented and

integrated observations on gendered languages, gen-dered spaces and local transformation.Antipode 22,33-52.

Pryor, J.Y. 1988: Geography, technology and war. Stud-ies in the maritime history of the Mediterranean,649-1571. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rao, B. 1991: Dominant constructions ofwomen and

nature in social science literature. CES/CNS pam-

phlet 2. CNS, PO Box 8467, Santa Cruz CA95061.

Raskin, M.S. 1991: The road to reconstruction. The

Nation 252(15), 512-14.

Robbins, B. 1991: Tenured radicals, the new

McCarthyism, and PC. New Left Review 188,51-57.

Rose, G. 1990: The struggle for political democracy:emancipation, gender and geography. Environment

and PlanningD 8, 395-408. 1991: Book review. Journal of Historical Geography,

118-21.

Rosenthal,A.M. 1991: Mideast geography lesson.

New York

Times,17

May.Rssler, M. 1989:Applied geography and area re-

search in Nazi society: central place theory and

planning, 1933 to 1945. Environment and Planning D

7,419-31. 1990a: La geographie aux congrs intemationaux:

changes scientifiques et conflits politiques. Relationsinternationales 62, 183-99.

1990b: Wissenschaft und Lebensraum GeographischeOstforschung im Nationalsozialismus. Ein Beitrag zur

Disziplingeschichte der Geographie. Berlin: DietrichReimer Verlag.

Sack,D.

1991: The troublewith antithesis: the case of

G.K. Gilbert, geographer and educator. The Pro-

fessional Geographer 43, 28-37.

Said, E. 1978: Orientalism. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.

Sanders, R. 1990: Integrating race and ethnicity geo-graphic gender studies. Professional Geographer 42,228-31.

Sandner, G. 1990: Zusammenhnge zwischen wis-

senschaftlichen Dissens, politischen Kontext und

antisemitischen Tendenzen in der Deutschen Geo-

graphie 1918-1945: Siegfried Passarge undAlfred

Philippson. Coloquium Geographicum 20, 35-49.

Schulman, R. 1991: Portable GIS: From the sands of

Desert Storm to the forests of California. Geo InfoSystems 1 (8), 24-33.

Sezgin, F. 1987: The contribution of theArab-Islamic

geographers to the formation of the world map. Frankfurtam Main: Institut fur Geschichte derArabisch-Isla-

mischen Wissenschaften, Johann GoetheUniversitat.

Smith, N. 1990: Uneven development. nature, capitaland the production of space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Taylor, M. 1989: French scientific expeditions inAfrica during the July Monarchy. Proceedings of theWestern Society for French History 16, 243-52.

Taylor, P.J. 1990: GKS. Political Geography Quarterly9,211-12.

Thornthwaite, C.W. 1961:American geographers: acritical evaluation. Professional Geographer 13,10-13.

Tinling, M. 1989: Women into the unknown: a source-book on women explorers and travelers. New York:Greenwood Press.

Tomlinson, R.F. 1988: The impact of transition from

analogue to digital cartographic representation. TheAmerican Cartographer 15, 249-61.

Torgovnick, M. 1990: Gone primitive. Savage intellects,modern lives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tribe, L.H. 1989: The curvature of constitutional

space: what lawyers can learn from modem physics.Harvard Law Review 103(1), 1-42.

Truettner,W.H. 1991: The West asAmerica: Re-

interpreting images of the frontier, 1820-1920. Wash-

ington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

US Naval Institute 1958: Geography and national

power.Annapolis, Md: USNI.

Warntz, W. 1989: Newton, the Newtonians, and the

Geographia Generalis Varenii.Annals of theAssocia-tion of American Geographers 79, 165-91.

Waschkies, H.-J. 1987: Physik und Physikotheologiedes jungen Kant: Die Vorgeschichte seinerAllgemei-nen Naturgeschichte und Theories des Himmels.

Amsterdam: B.R. Gruner.

Weigert, H. 1942: Geography and generals. New York:Oxford University Press.

Wood, D. 1989: Commentary. Cartographica 26,117-19.

Worrall, L., editor, 1990: Geographic information sys-tems : developments and applications. London: Belha-ven Press.

Young, I. 1990: Justice and the politics of difference.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Smith N - History and Philosophy of Geography - Real Wars, Theory Wars.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Smith N - History and Philosophy of Geography - Real Wars, Theory Wars.pdf