I spent the last week attending the annual Association of American Geographers (AAG) conference - 100th anniversity to be precise. As part of the conference the Association had numerous luminaries within the discipline (as well as a few non-geographers) give presentations regarding geography as a whole (where we’ve been, where we are now, changes that have taken place, and where we are headed in the future, etc., etc.).
One speaker - Harm de Blij - highlighted the fact that there are very few geographers who are part of the “lecture circuit” - those people who are often influential in shaping public opinion. Or people who are often consulted/relied upon as experts in their field by the major print/television media. Or people who are often relied upon by those involved in establishing public policy within the government. In other words, a cadre of people who are seen as pundits, opinion makers, editorialists, etc. that are highly influential in addressing important issues. Think Paul Krugman (economist) or Fareed Zakaria (political scientist) as but two examples. In summation of his presentation, Dr. de Blij encouraged us as geographers to become more actively engaged in this aspect of the broader public discourse.
The point I’m trying to make is this - Is geography relevant to the public at large when it comes to addressing the important issues that face us (I’m talking largely in the context of the United States; but it could also be applied to other countries as well)? If what Dr. de Blij says is true, what should geographers do to increase their role in shaping public opinion and public policy? Is geography’s relavance vis-a-vis the broader public discourse largely the fault of geographers? Or is it rather a misunderstanding or underappreciation for what geography and geographers can “bring to the table”, so to speak, in regards to the broader public discourse?
Not to be flippant, but you tell us. You’re the Geographer.
I think of Geography as “maps.” There’s obviously more to it than that, as National Geographic tells me every month. But a lot of those things also fall under anthropology, archaeology, ethnography. If you can provide a clear idea of they “geography” is in your mind, I suspect we’ll be halfway to an answer.
And to prove I’m being fair: I would reckon a big part of why “Literature” as an academic discipline is increasingly irrelevant is that we can’t/won’t define it.
I like maps. I collect local antique maps. I peruse atlases. I enjoy plat books. I’ve visited the main DeLorme Map store in Maine. I have the National Geographic CDs for back issues, and for maps. I’d love to hear a geographer speak about maps and geography.
But I have no clue as to what issues a geographer would bring to a public discourse. Enlighten me, please!
Would it be about geographic anomalies, like that bit of Kentucky that’s not attached to the rest of Kentucky? Or controversies involving that curvy part of the Delaware/Pennsylvania border? Or topics in keeping up to date on the current Mississippi River channel? I’d love to hear about any of those. (OK, I’m weird, I admit it. But I would love to hear about those things.)
I think we’d be looking at stuff more along the lines of social geography. Like the status (or lack thereof) of fresh water resources in Central Asia and the long and short term political/economic effects it has for the region as far as water distribution rights goes. This happens to be a very sticky situation in the *-stans. I suppose that borders on being ecological, though.
Geography can also be applied to the distribution of life on earth, which is of course of prime importance in shifting modern times.
I agree that ‘geography,’ for most people, conjures images of apolitical things like where countries lie in relation to each other, and how mountains are formed, and stuff.
But I think that, in general, people are starting to realize that thinking inside these kinds of disciplines limits our thinking. Mix geography with science, planning, sociology, psychology, politics, economics, political economy … there’s no end !
F’rinstance, what would be a geographer’s take on the Iraq situation [or, pick something less contentious if you prefer]?
I took a geography course to fulfill a breadth requirement when I went back to complete my degree, and I must say, it was one of my most enjoyable courses.
Now, when I think about geography, I find myself thinking this way:
The Earth is a ball. The most obvious primary distinction we make on it is that between continents and ocean. But why? Because we humans make use of the ocean and the land in different ways.
The next most obvious details are large mountain ranges and river systems, and also climtatically homogeneous areas, such as forests, plains and deserts. Why are they important? Because each offers humans its own mix of opportunities and challenges.
At this level, geography lives in the place where geology and anthropology meet. The various aspects of the land influence the behavior of the people. The best history course I ever took emphasized that the first civilizations that took root during the Ice Age had similar characteristics. After the thaw, the next round of civilizations, which shared a number of characteristcs, all grew up around river deltas (Ancient Egypt was the largest of these).
Geography does not stop there, however. Every time a political boundary is drawn, everytime poll results are plotted on a map, there exists somewhere a reason for distinguishing one area from the other. These reasons have everything to do with some aspect of human behavior.
Just this morning, it was pointed out during a story on the fighting at the Afghan-Pakistani border that the boundary was drawn along the mountain range by the British, and ignored by the Pashtuns on either side ever since, which is key to understanding what goes on there. The British regarded the mountains as a barrier, the local residents do not. A geographer can be be a single source for this information. Knowing how the locals interact with the specifics of their surroundings, and understanding the behavior and viewpoints that result from these interactions is key to understanding why that area makes a good hiding place for Osama bin Laden.
Sigh – The computer gods must really hate me. I had a very long response which got eaten as I attempted to make a reply. Oh, well – that will teach me not to transcribe my responses in a word processor first and then do a cut-and-paste. I’ve learned my lesson.
originally posted by furt
Well, I largely agree with Dr. Harm de Blij that geographers should make more of an effort to increase their role in helping to shape public opinion and public policy. But how to do this – well, I’m not entirely certain. I think it would be great if some enterprising geographer were to start his/her own web-log – similar with respect to many in the “blogshpere” that focus on political issues. The “twist” or niche here would be that a geographer could infuse a geographic perspective into the political discussion. That’s but one idea I’ve had running around my head ever since I became hooked on reading the various political web-logs over the last 2-3 months.
Maps are but one aspect of geography. For the most part, maps are the tool in which geographers not only communicate information, but also use as an analytical device. To me, geography is the integrative discipline par excellence. Other disciplines tend to focus their attention on a narrow range of phenomena and seek a depth of understanding/knowledge within that narrow range. Geography, on the other hand, attempts a breadth of understanding/knowledge by integrating the various phenomena that make-up the world.
History and historians serve a similar purpose in they provide a linear, or chronological, framework to our understanding/knowledge of the world. Geography and geographers adds another dimension – space – to the mix to provide a more varied and rich understanding/knowledge of the world we live in. While a very good economist will know a lot about economics (depth), a very good geographer will know a little bit about many different things (breadth). The important key here is that a really good geographer will be able to understand how many different phenomena are interconnected and interrelated. At least, that’s how I few geography (of course, other geographers may disagree).
If you want to get a sense of how geography differs from other disciplines, I usually give the following to my students when I ask them “What makes geography distinct from other disciplines?”
Location
Place
Regions
Human-Environment Relationships
Movement
The first – location – is based on the age-old question that has been an integral part of geography since the ancient Greeks: Where? This question helped spur the creation and development of maps, because maps are the tool we use to orient ourselves to where we are located (in the absolute sense, e.g. latitude-longitude; and also in the relative sense, i.e. where am I with respect to some other location/phenomena).
The second – place –is tied to the first. But place emphasizes understanding what makes a particular location unique (why is this place different from that place)? And the uniqueness of places isn’t limited to the natural/cultural phenomena that comprise them. It can also include the mental/behavioral attitudes that people have regarding those places. When you think of New York City or Las Vegas, not only do these places have unique physical/cultural attributes, they also invoke different mental impressions as well.
The thirds – regions – again is tied to the first, but is also tied to the second as well. In general, regions are areas of the earth’s surface with some sort of uniformity based on one or a few criteria. That is, rather than concentrating on what/why places are unique/distinct, an emphasis on regions forces geographers to look for similarities. This can be based on physical characteristics (Corn Belt, Sun Belt), man-made features (political boundaries of countries can be thought of as regions), and even various activities (think of the regions that can be formed by analyzing and mapping trade activity that takes place along the Pacific Coast of the US or analyzing and mapping the distribution of a daily newspaper). Regions are also helpful in that they enable geographers to “break-up” the world into smaller pieces in order to understand how all the various phenomena within that region interact or are inter-related.
The fourth – Human-Environment Relationships – highlights the inter-relationship between human beings and the environment. Not only can we study and understand how human beings shape/modify/destroy/transform the physical environment, but we can also study and understand how the physical environment influences human behavior. In other words, the Human-Environment relationship is two-way and geographers are intimately aware of this two-way relationship between humans and the environment.
The final – movement – deals with studying and understanding the movement of various phenomena that take place in the world. This can range from studying the migratory patterns of birds, to studying the migration of people, to studying trade relationships between countries, to studying the diffusion and spread of ideas or innovations across a given landscape.
While the Where? question will always have a place in geography, I should point out that the really interesting questions that geographers ask are Why? or How? or When? To give you an example: Where is New York City? Today, this would be relatively easy to answer (go look it up in an atlas!). But more interesting questions, and one that gets at the heart of how geography and geographers address certain issues are, for example: Why is New York City the pre-eminent economic center of the United States, if not the world? What is the inter-relationship among the historical, cultural, economic, and political factors that help one explain this? What about the physical location of New York City – can this, too, be included as part of analysis and understanding of the question?
In summation, I think a good definition of geography (that incorporates the 5 themes above) can be stated in the following manner: geography is the study of distributions (or patterns). But not only the study of the distributions/patterns of the various phenomena that make up the world, but also in trying to understand/explain how or why we observe the patterns that we see. And also how the various phenomena that are involved in the patterns that we observe are inter-related and/or inter-connected.
Well, I can’t speak for all geographers (we’re a pretty diverse group), but just to give you a sense of some of the questions a geographer might ask in regards to the situation in Iraq?
Why did the US govenrment choose to invade and occupy Iraq? Why Iraq and not some other country with respect to 9-11? (Note: I know we invaded Afghanistan and ousted the terrorists; but mighten the physical terrain, not to mention the political/cultural factors in place influenced the administration’s decision to forego a difficult military campaign in Afganistan/Pakistan in favor of one more amenable in Iraq?)
What are the possibilities of the Kurds in northern Iraq gaining independence? If you know anything about the history and cultural of the country (and the region in general), one could make a very strong claim that Kurdish independence is highly unlikely. For the simple fact that there is a large contingent of Kurds living in eastern Turkey, and the Turkey government would not be too keen on having an independent Kurdistan on its border.
How relavant are the political borders with regards to the ethnic/cultural make-up of Iraq? If you know anything about the history of Iraq, that it was created out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire by the British. In fact, the political boundaries are arbitrary and did not rely on the input of the local populations. We are now faced with a situation where you have three primary groups (Kurds, Sunni, and Shia) trying to form a government in the face of a history where the Sunni (a minority) have held sway politically and economically over the last 30 some years. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that you now have a situation ripe for internal conflict or out-right civil war. It also, to some extent, helps explain why the US didn’t oust Sadam after the first Gulf War. The US didn’t want to create a situation where the region would become unstable.
What is the geopolitical importance of Iraq (and by proxy, the Middle East)? Well, oil of course. If the US can control the easy flow of oil from the region either directly or indirectly, then it can maintain it’s position as the pre-eminent power (economic, political, and military) of the world.
The above are just a few questions and responses that one geographer might make. I think what a geographer can bring to the public discourse is a multi-facted understanding the issues of the day. History, politics, economics, culture, environment all need to be taken into consideration when trying to come to grips with understanding Iraq totay. And geographers are well suited in bringing the various pieces together and understanding all of them as a whole.
The following is a link to a book by a prominent geographer that I think highlights precisely what geogaphers can bring to public discourse. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the authors views, but I do think it provides a good example of what geographers are able to offer.
Well, for once I was right. I think implicit in your definition is a very persuasive case for what geographers can bring to the table. As to why they haven’t done so so far … I dunno. My impression is that the kinds of issues you address in the second post are usually done in the media by people expert in the particular region being discussed at the moment. News outlets are more interested in “Explain Bosnia in 30 seconds” (or 3 column inches) than in “Explain the general principles that underlie ethnic conflicts like Bosnia.”
I agree. A blog is well-suited to the kind of thing you’re talking about. Can I suggest a nominee for the task?
I love maps too. I have the complete CD collection of National Geographic (back issues and maps) as well. I think maps and all things map-related are what brings many people into geography. It’s what initially drew me in. I used to spend hours as a kid pouring over atlases and road maps imagining what it would like to live or visit the places depicted. In fact, if I wasn’t a lowly college professor as was independently wealthy, I would probably be an itinerant traveler. I still may become one - who knows.
Well, I think it would depend on the geographer’s background and expertise. There’s quite a bit of academic specialization - there’s economic geography, political geography, social and cultural geography, historical geography, urban geography to name but a few in the realm of the social sciences. Then there’s the climatologists, biogeographers, geomorphologists, ecologists to name a few in the realm of the physical sciences. And there’s also the cartographers (mapmakers), geodetic scientists, geographic information systems (GIS) specialists in the realm of the technical sciences.
But I think a key factor that geographers can bring to public discourse is the frame of reference in which questions are asked or issues are framed. Or to put it simply - almost all geographers are keenly aware of the important role that space/place has in undersanding issues.
To give you just one example that I am somewhat familiar with: economic activity. A lot of economic issues that are discussed don’t really address the explicit spatial component of all economic activity. Sure, it’s often implied, but never really addressed satisfactorily.
To give but one example: agglomeration effects. Agglomeration is a phenomenon whereby businesses tend to concentrate near one another to take advantage of such things as a common pool of labor, infrastructure, energy usage/utilities, local governmental taxes and regulation, and other factors. Geographers (and some very enterprising economists) have been at the forefront in trying to understand these agglomeration effects (both in terms of why they occur and what are the implications of said effects). In short, agglomeration effects are the result of spatial concentration. One would encouter a different set of economic behavior if businesses were arranged into a different pattern. Likewise, one could posit disagglomeration effects - the negative consequences of businesses concentrated near one another.
As a consequence of the above, one can then understand why, for example, the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center had such a negative impact on the US economy (I should point out that this is not the only reason, but just one from a geographic perspective for consideration). Because of the large concentration of major financial institutions in a small geographic area, the reprocusions of such an attack were devestaing. If the attack occured, for example, at the heart of the financial district in Des Moines, Iowa it still would have been a terrible tragedy. But the devestating economic effects might not have been as great. Of course, one could argue that the negative economic effects weren’t that great. But one can’t argue that there wasn’t an impact - an impact that would have been quite different if they had occured someplace else.
Well, some geographers are involved and interested in the above issues. I have my own personal “geographic quirks” and predilections. I sometimes ask my students if they can identify the two places in the United States that one has to travel through a foreign country if they wish to visit these places by land (Alaska excluded, of course). Extra credit if you can identify the two
I think that the public does not really have a complete understanding of what a geographer studies. Sure their are maps and migrations but the full aspect of the geographers tool kit is oft undervalued. As stated, the traditions of geography are wide in scope.
On that I would agree with the speaker Dr. Harm de Blij where geographers must get their skills in front of the plicy makers. I have no doubt that a geographer can offer insight to most issues. Insights that are unfortunately un-explored until the concequences of ill-informed decision have been examined. But I do not see a simple solution. Comprehensive geography courses as degree requirements is a good start, yet it should not be overlooked that sometimes geographers cannot relate to each other so well either. The GIS geographer, the ethnographer, the physical geographer et al share little in way of expertise. Would tightening the professional bonds be a pre-requisite to bettering the public geographer?
Panama however is part of Central America but some maps group the two contenents for convience. Panama Canal however was controled by the Panama Canal commission starting in 1979. This was fully a US agency. As per the treaty agreement the Canal Commission was turned over to Panama at the end of 1999.
At least I’m in the right thread for this! Since when is Central America its own continent? Since when does North America only consist of Canada, U.S.A., and Mexico? The ONLY people I’ve ever heard this from before were the ones who staged the recent invasion. Have I been wrong for lo, these forty years?
Help me out here, geographers. Contribute to the public discourse.
I see where you are going. I count North and Central as separate. Some, mabye most atlas’ will say there are 7 continents. Like how Austrailia is an island continent and Greenland is not. I don’t have a strong feeling either way. But what is or should be a continent is a hijack of this thread. I will digress at this point and defer to whatever atlas you have in you hand.
You know this bothered me and I checked some resources. I was thinking of the NAFTA. I had it in my head that NAFTA was a comprehensive paper and kept it there until moments ago. My bad. I promise I won’t make that mistake again.
Well, it’s not that it was just you. It was something I learned in school that remained blissfully unjarred until recently. Those people I referred to earlier were actually insistent that N.A. only consisted of Canada and the U.S., now that I think of it, and I was able to ignore that. But here furt, and then you seemed to be operating under the assumption that N.A. is Canada, U.S., and Mexico, and I got confused. I wondered if I’d missed a memo. And I’ll defer to whatever the experts chime in with, and that should end this hijack! Sorry if I came across too strong.
