Earth description

Social geography is the branch of human geography that is most closely related to social theory in general and sociology in particular, dealing with the relation of social phenomena and its spatial components. Though the term itself has a tradition of more than 100 years,^[1] there is no consensus on its explicit content.^[2] In 1968, Anne Buttimer noted that "[w]ith some notable exceptions, (...) social geography can be considered a field created and cultivated by a number of individual scholars rather than an academic tradition built up within particular schools".^[3] Since then, despite some calls^[4] for convergence centred on thestructure and agency debate,^[5] its methodological, theoretical and topical diversity has spread even more, leading to numerours definitions of social geography^[6] and, therefore, contemporary scholars of the discipline identifying a great variety of different social geographies.^[7] However, as Benno Werlen remarked,^[8] these different perceptions are nothing else than different answers to the same two (sets of) questions, which refer to the spatial constitution of society on the one hand, and to the spatial expression of social processes on the other.^{[9][note 1]}

The different conceptions of social geography have also been overlapping with other sub-fields of geography and, to a lesser extent, sociology. When the term emerged within the Anglo-American tradition during the 1960s, it was basically applied as a synonym for the search for patterns in the distribution of social groups, thus being closely connected to urban geography and urban sociology.^[10] In the 1970s, the focus of debate within American human geography lay on political economic processes (though there also was a considerable number of accounts^[11] for a phenomenological perspective on social geography),^[12] while in the 1990s, geographical thought was heavily influenced by the "cultural turn". Both times, as Neil Smith noted, these approaches "claimed authority over the 'social'".^[13] In the American tradition, the concept of cultural geographyhas a much more distinguished history than social geography, and encompasses research areas that would be conceptualized as "social" elsewhere.^[14] In contrast, within some continental European traditions, social geography was and still is considered an approach to human geography rather than a sub-discipline,^{[15][note 2]} or even as identical to human geography in general.^[16]

History

Before the Second World War

The term "social geography" (or rather "géographie sociale") originates from France, where it was used both by geographer Élisée Reclus and by sociologists of the Le Play School, perhaps independently from each other. In fact, the first proven occurrence of the term derives from a review of Reclus' Nouvelle géographie universelle from 1884, written by Paul de Rousiers, a member of the Le Play School. Reclus himself used the expression in several letters, the first one dating from 1895, and in his last work L'Homme et la terre from 1905. The first person to employ the term as part of a publication's title was Edmond Demolins, another member of the Le Play School, whose article Géographie sociale de la France was published in 1896 and 1897. After the death of Reclus as well as the main proponents of Le Play's ideas, and with Émile Durkheimturning away from his early concept of social morphology,^[1] Paul Vidal de la Blache, who noted that geography "is a science of places and not a science of men",^[17] remained the most influential figure of French geography. One of his students, Camille Vallaux, wrote the two-volume book Géographie sociale, published in 1908 and 1911.^[1] Jean Brunhes, one of Vidal's most influential disciples, included a level of (spatial) interactions among groups into his fourfold structure of human geography.^[18] Until the Second World War, no more theoretical framework for social geography was developed, though, leading to a concentration on rather descriptive rural and regional geography.^{[19][20][note 3]} However, Vidal's works were influential for the historical Annales School,^[21] who also shared the rural bias with the contemporary geographers,^[22] and Durkheim's concept of social morphology was later developed and set in connection with social geography by sociologists Marcel Mauss^[23] and Maurice Halbwachs.^[24]

The first person in the Anglo-American tradition to use the term "social geography" was George Wilson Hoke, whose paper The Study of Social Geography^[25] was published in 1907, yet there is no indication it had any academic impact. Le Play's work, however, was taken up in Britain by Patrick Geddes and Andrew John Herbertson.^[1] Percy M. Roxby, a former student of Herbertson, in 1930 identified social geography as one of human geography's four main branches.^[26] By contrast, the American academic geography of that time was dominated by the Berkeley School of Cultural Geography led by Carl O. Sauer, while the spatial distribution of social groups was already studied by the Chicago School of Sociology.^[27] Harlan H. Barrows, a geographer at the University of Chicago, nevertheless regarded social geography as one of the three major divisions of geography.^[28]

Another pre-war concept that combined elements of sociology and geography was the one established by Dutch sociologist Sebald Rudolf Steinmetz and his Amsterdam School of Sociography. However, it lacked a definitive subject, being a combination of geography and ethnography created as the more concrete counterpart to the rather theoretical sociology. In contrast, the Utrecht School of Social geography, which emerged in the early 1930s, sought to study the relationship between social groups and their living spaces.^[29][30]

Post-war period

Continental Europe

In the German-language geography, this focus on the connection between social groups and the landscape was further developed by Hans Bobek and Wolfgang Hartke after the Second World War.^{[31][note 4]} For Bobek, groups of Lebensformen (patterns of life)—influenced by social factors—that formed the landscape, were at the center of his social geographical analysis.^[32] In a similar approach, Hartke considered the landscape a source for indices or traces of certain social groups' behaviour.^[33] The best-known example of this perspective was the concept of Sozialbrache (social-fallow),^[34] i.e. the abandoning of tillage as an indicator for occupational shifts away from agriculture.^[35]

Though the French Géographie Sociale had been a great influence especially on Hartke's ideas,^[36] no such distinct school of thought formed within the French human geography.^[37][38] Nonetheless, Albert Demangeon paved the way for a number of more systematic conceptualizations of the field with his (posthumously published) notion^[39] that social groups ought to be within the center of human geographical analysis.^[40] That task was carried out by Pierre George and Maximilien Sorre, among others. Then a Marxist,^[41] George's stance was dominated by a socio-economic rationale,^[42] but without the structuralist interpretations found in the works of some the French sociologists of the time.^[43] However, it was another French Marxist, the sociologist Henri Lefebvre, who introduced the concept of the (social) production of space.^[44] He had written on that and related topics since the 1930s,^[45] but fully expounded it in La Production de L'Espace^[46] as late as 1974. Sorre developed a schema of society related to the ecological idea ofhabitat, which was applied to an urban context by the sociologist Paul-Henry Chombart de Lauwe.^[47] For the Dutch geographer Christiaan van Paassen, the world consisted of socio-spatial entities of different scales formed by what he referred to as a "syn-ecological complex",^[48] an idea influenced by existentialism.^[49]

A more analytical ecological approach on human geography was the one developed by Edgar Kant in his native Estonia in the 1930s and later at Lund University, which he called "anthropo-ecology". His awareness of the temporal dimension of social life would lead to the formation of time geography through the works of Torsten Hägerstrand and Sven Godlund.^[50]

Transport geography

Spatial interaction in Dhaka

Transport geography, also transportation geography, is a branch of geography that particularly investigates the movement of and connections between people, goods, and/or information on the Earth's surface.

Aims and scope

Transportation geography detects, describes and explains the Earth's surface's transportation spaces regarding location, substance, form, function and genesis, and asks for the effects of transportation on other spatial processes and/or land use and land cover patterns. Moreover, it contributes to transport, urban and regional planning.

Transportation, or more basically, movement, is fundamental to the economic activity of exchange. Therefore, transport geography and economic geography are largely interrelated. At the most basic level, humans move and thus interact with each other by walking, but transportation geography typically studies more complex and regional or global systems of transportation that include multiple interconnected modes like public transit, personal cars, bicycles, freight railroads, the Internet, airplanes and more. Such systems are increasingly urban in character. Thus, transport and urban geography are closely intertwined. Cities are very much shaped, indeed created, by the types of exchange and interaction facilitated by movement.^[1] Increasingly since the 19th century, transportation has been seen as a way cities, countries or firms compete with each other in a variety of spaces and contexts.^[2]

Transportation modes

Developments in Transportation Technology

Horse and carriage, sailing ships

Erie Canal

Steam locomotives

Automobiles

Passenger aircraft

←

average speed of 10mph

←

Canal construction leads way to increase in transportation, esp. in New York State

←

Trains avg 75mph

←

Autos become main mode of transportation

In terms of transport modes, the primary forms are air, rail, road, and water. Each one has its own cost associated with speed of movement, as a result of friction and place of origin and destination. For moving large amounts of goods, ships are generally used. Maritime shipping is able to carry more at a cheaper price around the world. For moving people who prefer to minimize travel time, and maximize comfort and convenience, air and road are the most common modes in usage. A railroad is often used to transport goods in areas away from water.

" Transportation modes are an essential component of transport systems since they are the means by which mobility is supported. Geographers consider a wide range of modes that may be grouped into three broad categories based on the medium they exploit: land, water and air. Each mode has its own requirements and features, and is adapted to serve the specific demands of freight and passenger traffic. This gives rise to marked differences in the ways the modes are deployed and used in different parts of the world. Recently, there is a trend towards integrating the modes through intermodality and linking the modes ever more closely into production and distribution activities. At the same time; however, passenger and freight activity is becoming increasingly separated across most modes." ^[3]

Road transportation

Road transportation networks are the type of transportation that is connected with movements on constructed roads; carrying people and goods from one place to another by means of lorries, cars, etc.

Maritime transportation

Water transportation is the slowest form of transportation in the movement of goods and people. Strategic chokepoints around the world have continued to play significant roles in maritime industry.

Challenges for transportation

Traffic and transportation on existing streets, highways, and rail facilities no longer match demands created by a recent population growth, and new location patterns of economic activity. Besides an increase in population, another problem is vehicles overloading the network of highways and arterial streets. See Traffic congestion,Transportation network, and Population densities

Tourism geography

Tourists at Niagara Falls.

Tourism geography is the study of travel and tourism, as an industry and as a social and cultural activity. Tourism geography covers a wide range of interests including the environmental impact of tourism, the geographies of tourism and leisure economies, answering tourism industry and management concerns and the sociology of tourism and locations of tourism.

Tourism geography is that branch of science which deals with the study of travel and its impact on places.

Geography is fundamental to the study of tourism, because tourism is geographical in nature. Tourism occurs in places, it involves movement and activities between places and it is an activity in which both place characteristics and personal self-identities are formed, through the relationships that are created among places, landscapes and people. Physical geography provides the essential background, against which tourism places are created and environmental impacts and concerns are major issues, that must be considered in managing the development of tourism places.

The approaches to study will differ according to the varying concerns. Much tourism management literature remains quantitative in methodology and considers tourism as consisting of the places of tourist origin (or tourist generating areas), tourist destinations (or places of tourism supply) and the relationship (connections) between origin and destination places, which includes transportation routes, business relationships and traveler motivations.^[1] Recent developments in Human geography have resulted in approaches such as those from cultural geography, which take more theoretically diverse approaches to tourism, including a sociology of tourism, which extends beyond tourism as an isolated, exceptional activity and considering how travel fits into the everyday lives and how tourism is not only a consumptive of places, but also produces the sense of place at a destination.^[2] The Tourist dy Dean MacCannell and The Tourist Gazeby John Urry are classics in this field.

Urban geography

New York City, one of the largest urban areas in the world

Urban geography is the subdiscipline of Geography which concentrates on those parts of the Earth's surface that have a high concentration of buildings and infrastructure. Predominantly towns and cities, these are settlements with a high population density and with the majority of economic activities in the secondary sector and tertiary sectors.

Research interest

Urban geographers are primarily concerned with the ways in cities and towns are constructed, governed and experienced. Contrary to neighboring disciplines such as urban anthropology, urban planning and urban sociology, urban geography mostly investigates the impact of urban processes on the earth's surface's social and physical structures. Urban geographical research can be part of both human geography andintegrated geography.

Areas of study

There are essentially two approaches to urban geography: the investigation of systems of cities and research on cities as systems. The first approach involves the study of problems relating to the spatial distribution of cities themselves and the complex patterns of movement, flows and linkages that bind them in space. The second approach is on the study of patterns of distribution and interaction within cities, essentially the study of their inner structure.

Research topics

Cities as centers of manufacturing and services

Cities differ in their economic makeup, their social and demographic characteristics and the roles they play within the city system. These differences can be traced back to regional variations in the local resources on which growth was based during the early development of the urban pattern and in part the subsequent shifts in the competitive advantage of regions brought about by changing locational forces affecting regionalspecialization within the framework of the market economy. Recognition of different city types necessitates their classification, and it is to this important aspect of urban geography that we now turn. Emphasis is onfunctional town classification and the basic underlying dimensions of the city system.

The purpose of classifying cities is twofold. On the one hand, it is undertaken to search reality for hypotheses. In this context, the recognition of different types of cities on the basis of, for example, their functional specialization may enable the identification of spatial regularities in the distribution and structure of urban functions and the formulation of hypotheses about the resulting patterns. On the other hand, classification is undertaken to structure reality in order to test specific hypotheses that have already been formulated. For example, to test the hypotheses that cities with a diversified economy grow at a faster rate then those with a more specialized economic base, cities must first be classified so that diversified and specialized cities can be differentiated.

The simplest way to classify cities is to identify the distinctive role they play in the city system. There are three distinct roles. 1. Central places functioning primarily as service centers for local hinterlands. 2.Transportation cities performing break-of-bulk and allied functions for larger regions. 3. Specialized-function cities are dominated by one activity such as mining, manufacturing or recreation and serving national and international markets. The composition of a city's labor force has traditionally been regarded as the best indicator of functional specialization, and different city types have been most frequently identified from the analysis of employment profiles. Specialization in a given activity is said to exist when employment in it exceeds some critical level.

The relationship between the city system and the development of manufacturing has become very apparent. The rapid growth and spread of cities within the heartland-hinterland framework after 1870 was conditioned to a large extent by industrial developments and that the decentralization of population within the urban system in recent years is related in large part to the movement of employment in manufacturing away from the traditional industrial centers. Manufacturing is found in nearly all cities, but its importance is measured by the proportion of total earnings received by the inhabitants of an urban area. When 25 percent or more of the total earnings in an urban region are derived from manufacturing, that urban areas is arbitrarily designated as a manufacturing center.

The location of manufacturing is affected by myriad economic and non-economic factors, such as the nature of the material inputs, the factors of production, the market and transportation costs. Other important influences include agglomeration and external economies, public policy and personal preferences. Although it is difficult to evaluate precisely the effect of the market on the location of manufacturing activities, two considerations are involved: the nature of and demand for the product and transportation costs.

Feminist geography

Feminist geography is an approach in human geography which applies the theories, methods and critiques of feminism to the study of the human environment, society and geographical space.^[1]

The geography of women

The geography of women focuses upon description of the effects on gender inequality. In terms of theoretical influences, it focuses on welfare geography and liberal feminism. Geographically, feminist geographers emphasize on constraints of distance and spatial separation. As Seager et. al. argues, gender is only the narrow-minded approach when understanding the oppression of women throughout the decades of colonial history. In such, understanding the geography of women would mean taking a critical approach in questioning the dimensions of age, class, ethnicity, orientation and other socio-economic factors (2004).^[2] An early reproach of geography of women approach was that gender roles were mainly explained as gender inequality, such as housewives and mothers, in combination with the some concept of spatial constraint. However, Foord and Gregson (1986) argued that the concept of gender roles narrows the focus to women, emerges from a static social theory, and presents women as victims. Furthermore, it gives a narrow reading of distance even though the geography of women displays how spatial constraint and separation enter into the construction of women’s position. Theorist Edward Said critiques the idea of geographical spaces in such a context where our actions on gendered practices of representation are fabricated through dominant ideological beliefs (2004).^[3] In relation to the misrepresentation of gender roles and taken-for-granted movements on feminine rights, we see that the challenges of the colonial present lies within the confinement of women in limited spatial opportunities. Hence, feminist geographies should consider and trace the inter-connections in all aspects of daily life; in other words, gender should be applied and developed in terms of space.^[4]

Socialist feminist geography

Socialist feminist geography seeks to explain inequality and the relationship between capitalism and patriarchy. It uses Marxism and Socialist feminism to explain the interdependence of geography, gender relations and economic development under capitalism. Socialist feminist geography revolved around the questions of how to reduce gender inequality based on patriarchy and capitalism. It has theoretical influences on Marxism, socialist feminism. The geographical focus is on spatial separation, gender place, and localities. One of the key theoretical debates within socialist feminist geography revolved around the question of how best to articulate gender and class analysis. For instance, drawing on of married mainland Chinese immigrant women living in New York City. While women remain the primary object of analysis, and gender remains the primary social relation, Zhou is intensely aware that many other factors, such as class, also affect women’s post-migration experiences and circumstances.^[5]

There are two scales that socialist feminist geographers first worked primarily. First, at the urban scale, Anglo-American feminist geographers focused on the social and spatial separation of suburban homes from paid employment; this was seen as vital to the day-to-day and generational reproduction of workers and the development and maintenance of traditional gender relations in capitalist societies.^[6]

Socialist feminist geographers widely attending to the ways that gender relations differ from place to place not only reflect, but also partly determine local economic changes. Judith Butler’s idea of citationality expands on the concept of the lack of agency to facilitate the presence of women within the discipline of geography. In such, we come to the awareness that whenever performative measures are taken to diminish women’s rights in geographical space, the conventions around it adapt around this context to make it seem as the norm.^[7] Likewise, feminist geographers are also drawing on a broader range of social, and particularly cultural theory, including psychoanalysis and post-structuralism, in order to develop a fuller understanding of how gender relations and identities are shaped and assumed. This has led to fundamental rethinking of the category gender, and the contradictions and possibilities presented by the seeming instability and insistent repetitions of gender norms in practice. The focus on multiple identifications and the influence of post-structuralist and psychoanalytic theories has brought feminist geographers into dialogue with other strands of critical geography. But another consequence is that theoretical differences among feminist geographers are more obvious than in the past, but according to Monk 1994 the national differences between America and British geographers may be diminishing as both parties pursue new directions.

Feminist geographies of difference

Feminist geographies of difference concentrate upon the construction of gendered identities, differences among women, gender and constructions of nature by using cultural, post-structural, postcolonial and psychoanalytic theories, which writings of women of color, lesbian women, gay men and women from third world countries. In terms of geography, feminist geographers emphasize on micro-geographies of body, mobile identities, distance, separation and place, imagined geographies, colonialism and post-colonialism, and environment or nature.

Since the late 1980s, many feminist geographers have moved on to three new research areas:

First, feminist geographers contest and expand the category of genders between men and women. The difference in the construction of gender relations across race, ethnicity, age, religion, sexuality and nationality, becomes interesting for feminist geographers. Additionally, feminist geographers are also increasingly attentive to women who are positioned in various ways along the multiple axis of difference.

Second, in order to get better understanding of how gender relations and identities are formed and assumed, a broader extent of social theory, particular culture, are drawn by feminist geographers. Feminist geographers are more able to discuss and debate after the focus on multiple identifications and the influence of post-structuralist and psychoanalytic theories.^[8]

Third, a key area of discussion is about the difference between relativism and situated knowledge, and ways to reconcile partial perspectives with commitment to political action and social change.

Critical human geography

Critical human geography is defined as “a diverse and rapidly changing set of ideas and practices within human geography linked by a share commitment to emancipatory politics within and beyond the discipline, to the promotion of progressive social change and to the development of a broad range of critical theories and their application in geographical research and political practice.” (Johnston 2000).^[5]

Critical human geography comes from Anglophonic geography in the mid-1990s. It presents a broad alliance of progressive approaches to the discipline. Critical human geographers draw on theoretical approaches such as anarchism, anti-colonialism, critical race theory, environmentalism, feminism, Marxism, nonrepresentational theory, post-Marxism, post-colonialism, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, queer theory,situationism, and socialism. Much of the focus is on some of the key publications marking different eras in critical geography.

Critical human geography must be understood as multiple, dynamic, and contested.^[9]

Rather than a specific sub-discipline of geography, feminist geography is often considered part of a broader postmodern, critical theory approach, often drawing from the theories of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Judith Butler among others. More recent influences include critiques of feminism from post-colonial theorists. Feminist geographers often focus on the lived experiences of individuals and groups in their own localities, upon the geographies that they live in within their own communities, rather than theoretical development without empirical work.^[1]

Many feminist geographers study the same subjects as other geographers, but often with a focus on gender divisions.^[10] This concern has developed into a concern with wider issues of gender, family, sexuality, race, and class. Examples of areas of focus include:

Geographic differences in gender relations and gender equality

The geography of women: spatial constraints, welfare geography

The construction of gender identity through the use and nature of spaces and places

Geographies of sexuality (queer theory)

Children's geographies

In addition to societal studies, Feminist Geography also critiques Human Geography and other academic disciplines, arguing that academic structures have been traditionally characterized by a patriarchalperspective, and that contemporary studies which do not confront the nature of previous work reinforce the masculine bias of academic study.^[11] The British Geographer Gillian Rose's Feminism and Geography^[1] is one such sustained criticism, focused on Human Geography in Britain as being historically masculinist in its approach. This includes the writing of landscape as feminine (and thus as subordinate to male geographers), assuming a separation between mind and body. The following is referenced from Johnston & Sidaway (2004),^[12] and further describes such a separation and its influence on geography:

"'Cartesian dualism underlines our thinking in a myriad of ways, not least in the divergence of the social sciences from the natural sciences, and in a geography which is based on the separation of people from their environments. Thus while geography is unusual in its spanning of the natural and social sciences and in focusing on the interrelations between people and their environments, it is still assumed that the two are distinct and one acts on the other. Geography, like all of the social sciences, has been built upon a particular conception of mind and body which sees them as separate, apart and acting on each other (Johnston, 1989, cited in Longhurst, 1997, p. 492)'

Thus, too, feminist work has sought to transform approaches to the study of landscape by relating it to the way that it is represented ('appreciated' so to speak), in ways that are analogous to the heterosexual male gaze directed towards the female body (Nash 1996). Both of these concerns (and others)- about the body as a contested site and for the Cartesian distinction between mind and body - have been challenged in postmodern and poststructuralistfeminist geographies."

Other feminist geographers have interrogated the ways in which the discipline of geography itself represents and reproduces the heterosexual male gaze. Feminist geographers such as Katherine McKittrick have asserted pointed critiques of the ways in which we see and understand space are fundamentally bound up in how we understand the hegemonic presence of the white male subject in history, geography and in the materiality of everyday space. Building off of Sylvia Wynter's theories of the racialized production of public and private space, McKittrick challenges “social landscapes that presume subaltern populations have no relationship to the production of space” ^[13] and writes to document black female geographies in order to "allow us to engage with a narrative that locates and draws on black histories and black subjects in order to make visible social lives which are often displaced, rendered ungeographic.”^[13] McKittrick stakes claim in the co-articulation of race and gender as they articulate space and she writes, “I am emphasizing here that racism and sexism are not simply bodily or identity based; racism and sexism are also spatial acts and illustrate black women’s geographic experiences and knowledges as they are made possible through domination.”^[14]

List of related geographers

Dolores Hayden

Rosalyn Deutsche

Sarah Holloway

Cindi Katz

Doreen Massey

Linda McDowell

Gillian Rose

Evelyn Stokes

Gill Valentine

Samantha Fletcher

Geraldine Pratt

Kirsten Simonsen

Environmental determinism