Contribution Of American Geographers In Geography

WILLIAM MORRIS DAVIS

William Morris Davis was a highly influential American geographer who made significant
contributions to the field. Some of his notable contributions include:
1. Cycle of Erosion: Davis is best known for his concept of the "geographical cycle" or
cycle of erosion. He developed a generalized model that described the sequence of
landforms that would develop through the erosional processes of running water on
an elevated surface. This concept provided a framework for understanding the
evolution of landscapes and the formation of various landforms.
2. Geomorphology: Davis's work laid the foundation for the field of geomorphology,
the study of landforms and the processes that shape them. He introduced systematic
and scientific approaches to understanding landforms, emphasizing the role of
erosion and the influence of factors such as rock structure, climate, and time.
3. Landscape Evolution: Davis's research contributed to the understanding of landscape
evolution. He identified stages of landform development, including youth, maturity,
and old age, based on the erosional processes and the changing characteristics of
landforms over time. His ideas on landscape evolution influenced subsequent studies
in geomorphology and landscape analysis.
4. Geographic Education: Davis was also influential in the field of geographic education.
As a member of the Committee of Ten appointed by the National Education
Association in 1892, he played a key role in reviewing the status of geography in
school programs and college entrance requirements. His recommendations led to
the transformation of geography education, shifting it from rote memorization to a
more advanced and scientific discipline.
5. Deterministic Perspective: Davis's approach to geography was often deterministic,
emphasizing the cause-and-effect relationship between the physical environment
and human response. This perspective influenced the study of geography,
particularly in the United States, for a considerable period of time.
William Morris Davis's contributions to geography, particularly in the areas of
geomorphology, landscape evolution, and geographic education, have had a lasting impact
on the field. His concept of the cycle of erosion remains a fundamental concept in
geomorphology, and his influence on geographic education transformed the way geography
is taught and studied.

MARK JEFFERSON
In the early 20th century, geography in the United States experienced significant growth,
with multiple geography departments established across the country. This led to open
discussions and debates about the nature and content of geography, contributing to the
development of a distinct identity for American geography. One notable figure in this
development was Mark Jefferson, a former student of William Morris Davis, who became a
professor of geography at the Normal College in Ypsilanti in 1901.
Jefferson played a significant role in shaping American geography. He emphasized a "man-
centered" approach to geography, focusing on the relationship between humans and the
Earth. This differed from Davis's emphasis on the Earth itself. Jefferson also disagreed with
the Committee of Ten's recommendations, which favored systematic geography over
regional geography. As a professor in a teachers' training college, Jefferson recognized the
importance of teaching about different lands and peoples around the world to prepare
future citizens in an increasingly interconnected world.
In response to a questionnaire about the nature of geography, Jefferson expressed that
geography encompasses many aspects and defies a concise definition. He viewed geography
as the study of discoverable causes of distributions and the relationships between them. He
acknowledged the artistic aspect of geography through cartography, the delineation of
Earth's features and inhabitants on maps, as well as the scientific aspect, which involves
examining the underlying causes behind each distribution and its relationship to others.
Mark Jefferson's contributions to American geography included his conceptual approach,
focus on human-environment interaction, and advocacy for regional geography. His ideas
and teachings helped shape the field and influenced the perspectives of future geographers.

ELSWORTH HUNTINGTON
Huntington, another former student of William Morris Davis at Harvard, made significant
contributions to the understanding of climate's impact on human life. He developed the
hypothesis that dry climatic periods led to the migration and invasions of nomadic peoples
in Central Asia, resulting in historical events like the Mongol conquests. Huntington
presented this theory in his book "The Pulse of Asia" in 1907, which gained widespread
recognition and established him as an authority on climate's influence on human history.
In his subsequent book "Civilization and Climate" published in 1915, Huntington argued that
civilizations could only thrive in temperate regions with stimulating climates, while the
monotonous heat of the tropics limited development and perpetuated relative poverty in
those areas. These publications garnered attention and popularity among historians,
sociologists, medical students, and geographers.
However, during the time Huntington was promoting environmental determinism and
emphasizing climatic influences on civilization, American geography was moving away from
this deterministic perspective. As a result, Huntington's influence on the philosophy and
methodology of American geography was somewhat limited.

ELLEN CHURCHILL SEMPLE

Ellen Churchill Semple, a contemporary geographer, played a significant role in the
development of American geography. After studying geography under Ratzel at the
University of Leipzig, she was inspired to explore the relationship between American history
and its geographical conditions. Her book "American History and its Geographical
Conditions" published in 1903 achieved immediate success and established her as a
prominent teacher of history and geography.
Semple brought Ratzel's philosophy and methodology of geography to the United States,
captivating a generation of American students with her persuasive writing and enchanting
literary style supported by sound scholarship. She popularized the belief that environmental
influences shape human life on Earth. In her book "Influences of Geographical Environment"
(1911), she emphasized that every aspect of human life, including philosophy, religion, and
physiography, reflects the influence of the physical environment.
Semple's comparative method of study involved comparing peoples of different races and
cultural stages living in similar geographic conditions. If these diverse peoples exhibited
similar social, economic, or historical development, it was inferred that such similarities
were due to the environment rather than race.
However, Semple's approach had limitations. She took the concept of the environment as a
controlling factor in human affairs beyond objective verification. Although she
acknowledged that the environment does not control human actions but influences them,
she recognized the possibility of deviations from predictable behavior. Her man-
environment thesis had a probabilistic approach.
It is noteworthy that Semple focused primarily on the approach presented in the first
volume of Ratzel's "Anthropogeographie," which emphasized the environment as a
determining factor in human life. The second volume, which approached the issue from the
perspective of human will, choice, culture, and history, remained relatively unknown in
American geography. Consequently, Ratzel was mistakenly treated as an old-style
determinist despite his more nuanced approach.

HARLAN BARROWS
Harlan Barrows, in his 1922 presidential address to the Association of American
Geographers, introduced the concept of geography as human ecology. He emphasized that
human adaptation to the environment is not solely determined by the physical surroundings
but is influenced by human choice. This idea aligned with the concept of possibilism,
popular in France at the time. Barrows argued that while geography had lost much of its
subject matter to other disciplines, its scope was still too broad for a coherent discipline. He
proposed abandoning specialized branches like geomorphology, climatology, and
biogeography, and instead focusing on human ecology as the central organizing principle in
geography.
Barrows believed that the most direct and intimate relationships between humans and the
Earth stemmed from their efforts to sustain their livelihoods. He advocated for the
promotion of economic regional geography, stating that other divisions of geography should
be based primarily on economic geography. He emphasized the importance of intensive
fieldwork, considering it the geographers' laboratory and identifying it as their greatest
immediate need.

CARL SAUER

In the development of American geography, the concept of geography as a chorological

science had a long history in Europe but had remained focused on finding geographic
influences in human development in America. By the 1920s, a new generation of
geographers began questioning the validity of this approach and sought an alternative
model that was more satisfying. Carl Sauer, the head of the geography department at the
University of California, Berkeley, published an influential essay titled "The Morphology of
Landscape" in 1925.
Sauer criticized the prevailing concept of geography centered around man-land
relationships, noting that it limited intellectual exploration by committing students to
predetermined outcomes. Drawing inspiration from German geographers Humboldt and
Heitner, Sauer proposed a new model for geography. He defined geography as the study of
things associated within specific areas on the Earth's surface, considering both physical and
cultural factors that varied from place to place. Sauer emphasized the role of human action
in shaping the physical and biotic features of the Earth's surface, transforming natural
landscapes into cultural landscapes.
Sauer's concept of landscape encompassed both natural and human-imposed features, with
human activity being the latest force influencing the landscape. He viewed geography as the
study of the development of cultural landscapes from natural landscapes. This approach
aimed to identify patterns and regularities across different places to formulate
generalizations. Sauer considered this perspective as a continuation of the traditional
position in geography.
Overall, Sauer's alternative model emphasized the study of areas, not as unique
occurrences, but as a means to understand patterns and formulate broader insights about
the Earth's surface.
Sauer's concept of chorology in the study of cultural landscapes differed from the views of
Hellner and later Hartshorne. Unlike an ahistorical or anti-historical approach, Sauer
emphasized the importance of a historical perspective to understand the modifications
brought about by human action on the original landscape. Historical insight was considered
an essential part of Sauer's methodology and the work of his students.
According to a review by Norton Ginsburg for the Commission on College Geography,
Sauer's geography was scientific and focused on regions as systems. The comparative
method was used to develop hypotheses about spatial relationships and processes.

The shift to chorology as the dominant paradigm in American geography occurred with the
publication of Hartshorne's influential book, "Nature of Geography," in 1939. This book
became a key reference for graduate students and solidified the Hettnerian concept of
geography as a chorological science until the late 1950s.
Initially, chorology focused primarily on the study of present-day landscapes, neglecting the
historical perspective. However, as researchers delved into the study of actual landscapes,
they realized the interconnection between the "being" and "becoming" of landscapes. They
recognized that understanding present-day patterns required considering the historical
processes that shaped them. Consequently, historical geography became an essential
component of the American approach to chorological geography, influenced significantly by
Carl Sauer.
Ralph H. Brown and Carl O. Sauer were prominent figures in the development of historical
geography. Brown's work, such as "Mirror for Americans" (1943), recreated the geography
of the eastern seaboard around 1810 based on contemporary writings. This foreshadowed
the modern focus on environmental perception in geographical studies. Brown's "Historical
Geography of the United States" (1948) traced geographical changes during European
settlement.
Sauer and his graduate students at Berkeley also made significant contributions to historical
geography, examining past landscapes. One key principle that emerged from their studies
emphasized that the same physical conditions could have different meanings for people
with diverse attitudes, objectives, and technological skills. For example, the slope of land
could vary in significance for different agricultural practices or cultural traditions.
Derwent Whittlesey, another major contributor, described the study of the processes of
change in the settlement of an area as "sequent occupance." Each generation's occupancy
was linked to its predecessors and successors, revealing the transformation from stage to
stage. These studies challenged the notion of environmental determinism and instead
embraced cultural determinism, recognizing that changes in attitudes and skills influenced
how the resource base of a region was utilized.
In summary, the emergence of chorology as the central paradigm in American geography
led to the integration of historical perspectives. Researchers like Brown, Sauer, and
Whittlesey explored the relationships between human action, cultural factors, and the
dynamic nature of landscapes, emphasizing the importance of considering historical
processes and cultural determinants.

With the emergence of trained geographers from university departments, questions arose
regarding the practical value of their knowledge in addressing societal challenges.
Geographers recognized the limitations of small-scale field studies conducted as part of
their formal education and called for a reorientation of geography to address pressing
social, economic, and political issues. In response, numerous applied studies were
undertaken, aiming to provide insights for planning and remedial actions. This shift towards
applied geography opened up employment opportunities for geographers as consultants in
both public and private sectors. The experience gained during World War I, where
geographers collaborated with other specialists to solve real-life problems, further
contributed to the recognition of geographers' capabilities. This trend continued through
the 1920s, 1930s, and beyond.

MARXISM
During the late nineteenth century, modern geography and the Marxist ideology emerged
as products of the fin de siècle period, characterized by significant cultural and technological
changes. This era saw the rise of new modes of thinking about space and time, influenced by
advancements such as the telephone, cinema, and automobiles, as well as cultural
movements like stream-of-consciousness literature and Cubism. However, this period also
witnessed a prioritization of history over geography in social science theories, leading to a
diminished role for geography in the analysis of societal changes.
The dominance of historicism in the philosophical and theoretical discourse of the time
resulted in the marginalization of geography. Even within Marxist analysis, geography was
considered a secondary factor, with history seen as the primary force driving societal
development. As a result, geography's instrumental role in shaping politics, ideology, and
the survival of capitalism became increasingly obscured.
The separation of historical and geographical imaginations during this period can be
attributed to multiple factors. The rejection of environmentalism and physical-external
explanations of social processes played a role, as did the rise of modernist political
strategies. Those advocating for the demise of capitalism viewed spatial consciousness and
identity, such as localism and nationalism, as hindrances to the rise of a united world
proletariat. Reformists, on the other hand, saw them as inefficient and potentially disruptive
to state power.
Geography became isolated from mainstream social science discourse, influenced by the
perception of geography as distinct from social theory and history. Historians and social
theorists favored temporal sequencing over spatial analysis, further contributing to the
separation. As a result, geography was reduced to describing the differentiation of Earth's
surface, while history and social production took center stage.
However, in the 1960s, there was a loosening of the separation between geography and
Western Marxism. Ideas began to flow from Western Marxism to modern geography,
leading to the emergence of Marxist geography and critical human geography in the 1970s.
These developments challenged the positivist approach of mainstream geography and
called for a rethinking of spatial analysis.
Since the 1980s, the encounter between geography and Western Marxism has expanded,
resulting in a two-way flow of ideas. This has led to a call for a reformulation of social
theory, emphasizing the interaction between space, time, and social well-being. The aim is
to integrate the making of geography with the making of history, recognizing their
importance in social consciousness, structure, and action.
Overall, these developments have given rise to a postmodern critical social theory that
incorporates elements of modern geography and Western Marxism while transcending their
disciplinary boundaries. This approach, termed historico-geographical materialism,
recognizes the significance of historical geography in understanding capitalism and
emphasizes the need for a comprehensive analysis of space and time.

The development of a close interaction between geographical and sociological perspectives

in human geography was closely related to the growing connection between modern
geography and Western Marxism since the 1970s. Both geography and sociology rely on
other disciplines for their research material, making them somewhat "parasitic" in nature.
Sociology, in particular, lacks clear demarcation between its concepts and common-sense
notions, making it difficult to establish a progressive research program. Instead, sociology
focuses on theoretical innovations regarding social structures and relations, often
originating from discourses outside the field.
Geography, on the other hand, traditionally had a more centralized discourse, with
prescriptions about what should or should not be included in geographical work. Its primary
focus has been to explain the spatial distribution of various phenomena—physical,
economic, social, and political—by relating them to one or more other phenomena. Social
phenomena play a significant role in geography, as much of its subject matter involves the
spatial distribution of social phenomena. However, there has been a conflict regarding the
extent to which the character of social relations should be incorporated into the description
and explanation of geographic phenomena.
The opening up of geography to Western Marxism was instrumental in bridging the gap
between sociological and geographical imaginations. Geography's central concern with the
relationship between humans and nature aligned with the foundation of Marxism.
Consequently, social relations became more central to geography, leading to increased
openness to sociological discourse.
This convergence between geography and sociology allowed for a fruitful exchange of ideas
and perspectives, enriching both fields. The incorporation of sociological concerns in
geography provided a deeper understanding of the social dimensions of human life, while
geography's focus on spatial relationships contributed to sociological debates on the spatial
distribution of phenomena. Overall, this interaction between geographical and sociological
perspectives marked an important development in human geography, facilitating
interdisciplinary engagement and theoretical advancements.

The rise of a truly radical perspective in American social science was delayed due to the
absence of a Marxist tradition. This delay was particularly evident in the field of human
geography, where political awareness was low. Initially, even the call for more social
relevance in geography was met with skepticism and hostility. As a result, "radical"
geography in the United States initially took a liberal form, focusing on bringing the
discipline into important events and applying geographic skills to address immediate
practical problems faced by oppressed groups.
The first notable attempt to radicalize human geography research came from William
Bunge, an American geographer, who founded the Society for Human Exploration in 1968.
Bunge's objective was to encourage geographers to explore the poorest and most deprived
areas to gather unbiased firsthand information. The idea was for geographers to become
acquainted with the region and gain a better understanding of the inputs needed to
improve the lives of local residents. This participatory fieldwork aimed to involve
geographers in planning with the people rather than planning for them. However, Bunge's
project faced obstacles and did not fully materialize, although the Society did publish a few
reports on its explorations.
Around the same time, there was a related development with regular articles appearing in
Antipode, focusing on the problems faced by the poorest and most deprived sections of
society. These articles aimed to prevent plans for urban renewal that could lead to the
displacement of the poor and to hinder large institutions from acquiring inner-city land.
These articles can be seen as "expeditions" on a larger scale.
The breakthrough for Marxist thinking in geography occurred in the early 1970s. David
Harvey, a geographer, initiated a new direction by addressing the issue of ghetto formation
and finding existing geographic theories inadequate. Harvey believed that the problem
could only be effectively tackled by eliminating the market mechanism as the primary
regulator of land use. He argued for a Marxist approach that critically examines the negative
consequences of capitalism. Harvey's ideas gained attention and led to a shift from a
predominantly liberal perspective to a Marxist perspective in geography.
The proponents of social relevance in geographical work began to explore Marxist literature
in the mid-1970s, leading to an increasing identification of radical geography with the
Marxist approach. This divergence between liberals and radicals labeled the former as
upholders of the status quo, as liberal researchers tended to focus on immediate causes of
societal problems without questioning the underlying system generating social inequities.
Initially, radical geography emerged as a reaction against the prevailing geographical
establishment of the 1960s, which viewed geography as a fragment of science concerned
with spatial arrangement and the relationship between humans and the physical
environment. The Marxist critique aimed to integrate geography into holistic science and
dismantle artificial barriers between fields of learning. It called for science, including
geography, to work in favor of a social and economic system owned and controlled by all
people.
While embracing a Marxist perspective, caution was advised against rigid adherence to a
singular ideology. Geographers were reminded not to overlook factors beyond geography
and to avoid blindly supporting the status quo. It was important for geography to contribute
to human well-being and remain open to alternative perspectives.
In summary, the absence of a Marxist tradition in American social science delayed the
emergence of a truly radical perspective, particularly in human geography. However,
through the efforts of scholars like William Bunge and David Harvey, a shift towards a
Marxist approach occurred in the 1970s, leading to a reorientation of geographical research
to address societal problems and challenge the prevailing system.
STOP AND GO DETERMINISM

The concept of probabilism was closely parallel to the neo-environ

mentalist view of stop-and go determinism developed by Griffith Taylor(1951). Taylor
maintained that it may be that the well-endowed parts of the world offer a number of
different possibilities for making a living; but in some nine-tenths of the earth's land area,
nature speaks out clearly- "this land is too dry, or too cold, or too wet, or too rugged". He
wrote that the settlers who fail to heed this nature-given limitation must face disaster.
According to Taylor, the role of nature was far from crudely deterministic, but the
environment was nevertheless a potent force in human action which man could ameliorate
but not escape. It is like the case of the flow of traffic on a busy road. The traffic policeman
cannot wish away the traffic that must necessarily flow. All that he does is to regulate the
traffic through the temporary stop-and-go method. The human agency, through the use of
technology, can modify the force of nature but it cannot escape it. The role
of human agency is similar to that of the traffic regulator.