Towards a Genealogy of Critical Physical Geography

  • Stuart N. Lane
  • Christine Biermann
  • Rebecca Lave
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter links the history of the discipline of Geography and the core tenets of Critical Physical Geography (CPG) so as to tease out its genealogy. After review of the pitfalls of historical attempts at integration in Geography which CPG seeks to avoid, we consider the philosophical imperative invoked by some physical geographers and wider concerns about the social construction of science. We show how CPG goes beyond historical calls for ‘crossing the divide’ to address what should be integrated, how integration is done, and by whom. We conclude with three genealogical threads that run through CPG: the value of philosophical introspection; the need to develop much richer forms of integration within the discipline; and the value and nature of ‘critique’ in relation to how the researcher should be separated from the researched.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The basis of this chapter was a consultation as to key articles in the history of Geography that have influenced the authors of other chapters in this Handbook and we acknowledge the responses received from Louise Bracken, Simon Dufour, Chris Duvall, Salvatore Engel-Dimauro, Daniel Knitter, Javier Arce Nazario, Nathan Sayre, and Marc Tadaki.

References

  1. Ackermann, E.A. 1963. Where is a research frontier? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 53: 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashmore, P.E. 2015. Towards a sociogeomorphology of rivers. Geomorphology 251: 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashmore, P., and B. Dodson. 2016. Urbanizing physical geography. The Canadian Geographer 61: 102–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrow, H. 1923. Geography as human ecology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 13: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayliss-Smith, T.P. 1982. The ecology of agricultural systems, 112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, R.J., and R.J. Chorley. 1978. Environmental systems: Philosophy, analysis and control, 624. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bijker, W.E. 2007. Dikes and dams, thick with politics. ISIS 98: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Billinge, M., K. Gregory, and R. Martin, eds. 1983. Recollections of a revolution: Geography as spatial science, 235. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Bithell, M., J. Brasington, and K. Richards. 2008. Discrete-element, individual-based and agent-based models: Tools for interdisciplinary enquiry in geography? Geoforum 39: 625–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blaikie, P. 1985. The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Brand, U. 2016. How to get out of the multiple crisis? Contours of a critical theory of social-ecological transformation. Environmental Values 25: 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, A.G., S. Tooth, J.E. Bullard, D.S.G. Thomas, R.C. Chiverrell, A.J. Plater, J. Murton, et al. 2017. The geomorphology of the Anthropocene: Emergence, status and implications. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 42: 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bunge, W.W. 1973. The geography. The Professional Geographer 25: 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 1979. Perspectives on theoretical geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 69: 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castree, N. 2011. Nature and society. In The Sage handbook of geographical knowledge, 287–299. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2015. Geography and global change science: Relationships necessary, absent and possible. Geographical Research 53: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2016. Geography and the new social contract for global change research. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 41: 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chin, A. 2006. Urban transformation of river landscapes in a global context. Geomorphology 79: 460–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chisholm, M. 1967. General systems theory. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 42: 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chorley, R.J., and R.W. Kates. 1969. Introduction. In Water, earth and man, 1–7. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  21. Clement, R.M., and S.P. Horn. 2001. Pre-Columbian land-use history in Costa Rica: A 3000-year record of forest clearance, agriculture and fires from Laguna Zoncho. The Holocene 11: 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clifford, N.J. 2002. The future of geography: When the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Geoforum 33: 431–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2008. Models in geography. Geoforum 39: 675–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clifford, N., and K. Richards. 2005. Earth system science: An oxymoron? Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 30: 379–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Collins, H.M., and R.J. Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32: 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cooke, R.U. 1992. Common ground, shared inheritance: Research imperatives for environmental geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 17: 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Darier, E., S. Shackley, and B. Wynne. 1999. Towards a ‘folk integrated assessment’ of climate change? International Journal of Environment and Pollution 11: 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Demaria, F., and S. Schindler. 2016. Contesting urban metabolism: Struggles over waste-to-energy in Delhi, India. Antipode 48: 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Demeritt, D. 1996. Social theory and the reconstruction of science and geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 21: 484–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———. 2001. The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91: 307–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 2006. Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique. Economy and Society 35: 453–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ———. 2009. From externality to inputs and interference: Framing environmental research in geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 34: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Denevan, W.M. 1992. The pristine myth: The landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82: 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ———. 2011. The “Pristine Myth” revisited. Geographical Review 101: 576–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dyer, J.M. 2010. Land-use legacies in a central Appalachian forest: Differential response of trees and herbs to historic agricultural practices. Applied Vegetation Science 13: 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ellis, E.C. 2011. Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369: 1010–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Eyre, S.R. 1964. Determinism and the ecological approach to Geography. Geography 49: 369–376.Google Scholar
  38. Fischer-Kowalski, M., and H. Haberl. 2002. Sustainable development: Socio-economic metabolism and colonization of nature. International Social Science Journal 50: 573–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fischer-Kowalski, M., and H. Weisz. 1999. Society as hybrid between material and symbolic realms: Toward a theoretical framework of society-nature interrelation. Advances in Human Ecology 8: 215–251.Google Scholar
  40. Francis, R.A. 2014. Urban rivers: Novel ecosystems, new challenges. WIREs Water 1: 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Francis, R.A., J. Lorimer, and M. Raco. 2012. Urban ecosystems as ‘natural’ homes for biogeographical boundary crossings. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37: 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gandy, M. 2002. Concrete and clay: Reworking nature in New York City. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Görg, C. 2007. Landscape governance: The “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places. Geoforum 38: 954–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Goudie, A.S. 1986. The integration of human and physical geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geography NS11: 454–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. ———. 2017. The integration of human and physical geography revisited. The Canadian Geographer 61: 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gregory, D.J. 1978. Ideology, science and human geography. London: Hutcherson.Google Scholar
  47. Gregory, K.J. 2000. The changing nature of physical geography, 368. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 2006. The human role in changing river channels. Geomorphology 79: 172–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Haff, P.K. 2010. Hillslopes, rivers, plows, and trucks: Mass transport on Earth’s surface by natural and technological processes. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 35: 1157–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Haggett, P. 1965. Locational analysis in human geography. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  51. Haggett, P., and R.J. Chorley. 1969. Network models in geography. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  52. Harden, C.P. 2014. The human-landscape system: Challenges for geomorphologists. Physical Geography 35: 76–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Harrison, S., and P. Dunham. 1998. Decoherence, quantum theory and their implications for the philosophy of geomorphology. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 23: 501–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Harrison, S., D. Massey, K. Richards, F.I. Magilligan, N. Thrift, and B. Bender. 2004. Thinking across the divide: Perspectives on the conversations between physical and Human Geography. Area 36: 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Harrison, S., D. Massey, and K. Richards. 2006. Complexity and emergence (another conservation). Area 38: 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. ———. 2008. Conservations across the divide. Geoforum 39: 549–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Harvey, D. 1969. Explanation in geography. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  58. ———. 1974. Population, resources, and the ideology of science. Economic Geography 50: 256–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hecht, S. 1985. Environment, development and politics: Capital accumulation and the livestock sector in Eastern Amazonia. World Development 13: 663–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Hooke, J.M. 2006. Human impacts on fluvial systems in the Mediterranean region. Geomorphology 79: 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hulme, M. 2008. Geographical work at the boundaries of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33: 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Jackson, P. 2000. Rematerializing social and cultural geography. Social and Cultural Geography 1: 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jasanoff, S. 2004. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. Chapter 2 in States of knowledge: The Co-production of science and the social order, 25–98. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. ———. 2010. A new climate for society. Theory, Culture and Society 27: 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Johnston, R.J. 1983. Resource analysis, resource management and the integration of human and physical geography. Progress in Physical Geography 7: 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. ———. 1986. Fixations and the quest for unity in geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 11: 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. ———. 2006. Geography (or geographers) and earth system science. Geoforum 37: 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Jones, P., and N. Macdonald. 2007. Getting it wrong first time: Building an interdisciplinary research relationship. Area 39: 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kennedy, B.A. 1979. A naughty world. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 4: 550–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. King, Leonora, and Marc Tadaki. this volume. A framework for understanding the politics of science (Core Tenet #2).Google Scholar
  71. Lahsen, M. 2005. Seductive simulations? Uncertainty distribution around climate models. Social Studies of Science 35: 895–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lane, S.N., N. Odoni, C. Landström, S.J. Whatmore, N. Ward, and S. Bradley. 2011. Doing flood risk science differently: An experiment in radical scientific method. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36 (1): 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lane, S.N. 2014. Acting, predicting and intervening in a socio-hydrological world. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18 (3): 927–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lane, S.N. 2017. Slow science, the geographical expedition, and Critical Physical Geography. The Canadian Geographer 61: 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies, 336. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Lave, R., M.W. Wilson, E.S. Barron, C. Biermann, M.A. Carey, C.S. Duvall, L. Johnson, et al. 2014. Intervention: Critical Physical Geography. The Canadian Geographer 58: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Law, Justine. this volume. The impacts of doing environmental research (Core Tenet #3).Google Scholar
  79. Leighly, J.B. 1955. What has happened to physical geography? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 45: 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lewin, J. 2013. Enlightenment and the GM floodplain. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 38: 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Livingstone, D. 1992. The nature of geography, 434. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  82. Mackinder, H.J. 1887. On the scope and methods of geography. Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society and Monthly Record of Geography 9: 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Macmillan, W., and H.Q. Huang. 2008. An agent-based simulation model of a primitive agricultural society. Geoforum 39: 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Maddrell, A. 2010. Academic Geography as terra incognita: Lessons from the ‘expedition debate’ and another border to cross. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35: 149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Malanson, G.P. 2014. Biosphere-human feedbacks: A physical geography perspective. Physical Geography 35: 50–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Marsh, G.P. 1864. Man and nature, C, 560. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  87. Mercer, D. 1983. Unmasking technocratic geography. In Recollections of a revolution: Geography as spatial science, ed. M. Billinge, K. Gregory, and R. Martin, 153–199. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mountz, A., A. Bonds, B. Mansfield, J.M. Lloyd, J. Hyndman, M. Walton-Roberts, R. Basu, et al. 2015. For slow scholarship: A feminist politics of resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 14: 1235–1259.Google Scholar
  89. Pain, R. 2014. Impact: Striking a blow or working together? ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 13: 19–23.Google Scholar
  90. Pattison, W.D. 1964. The four traditions of geography. Journal of Geography 63: 211–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Peet, R., and M. Watts, eds. 1996. Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  92. Petts, J., S. Owens, and H. Bulkeley. 2008. Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum 39: 593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Phillips, J.D. 2001. Human impacts on the environment: Unpredictability and the primacy of place. Physical Geography 32: 321–332.Google Scholar
  94. Pitman, A.J. 2005. On the role of geography in earth system science. Geoforum 36: 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Pollard, J.S., J. Oldfield, S. Randalls, and J.E. Thornes. 2008. Firm finances, weather derivatives and geography. Geoforum 39: 616–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rasmussen, K., and F. Arler. 2010. Interdisciplinarity at the human-environment interface. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 110: 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rhoads, B.L. 1999. Beyond pragmatism: The value of philosophical discourse for physical geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89: 760–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rhoads, B.L., and C.E. Thorn. 1994. Contemporary philosophical perspectives on physical geography with emphasis on geomorphology. Geographical Review 84: 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. ———, eds. 1996. The scientific nature of geomorphology, 484. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  100. Rhoads, B.L., D. Wilson, M. Urban, and E.E. Herricks. 1999. Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: Emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environmental Management 24: 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Richards, K.S. 1990. Real’ geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 15: 195–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Richards, K. 1996. Samples and cases: Generalisation and explanation in geomorphology. In The scientific nature of geomorphology, ed. B.L. Rhoads and C.E. Thorn, 171–190. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  103. Richards, K., and N. Clifford. 2008. Science, systems and geomorphologies: Why LESS may be more. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 33: 1323–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Serra, P., X. Pons, and D. Saurí. 2008. Land-cover and land-use change in a Mediterranean landscape: A spatial analysis of driving forces integrating biophysical and human factors. Applied Geography 28: 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Stengers, I. 2013. Une autre science est possible! Manifeste pour un ralentissement des sciences, 216. Paris: Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond.Google Scholar
  106. Stoddart, D. 1965. Geography and the ecological approach. The ecosystem as a geographical principle and method. Geography 50: 242–251.Google Scholar
  107. Sundberg, M. 2009. The everyday world of simulation modeling: The development of parameterizations in meteorology. Science, Technology and Human Values 34: 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Swyngedouw, E., and N.C. Heynen. 2003. Urban political ecology, justice, and the politics of scale. Antipode 35: 898–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Syvitski, J.P.M., C.J. Vörösmart, A.J. Kettner, and P. Green. 2005. Impact of humans on the flux of terrestrial sediment to the global coastal ocean. Science 308: 376–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Tarolli, P., and G. Sofia. 2016. Human topographic signatures and derived geomorphic processes across landscapes. Geomorphology 255: 140–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Thomas, W.L. 1956. Man’s role in changing the face of the earth, 1193. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  112. Thornes, J.E. 1981. A paradigmatic shift in atmospheric studies? Progress in Physical Geography 5: 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Thornes, J.E., and G.R. McGregor. 2003. Cultural climatology. In Contemporary meanings in physical geography, ed. S. Trudgill and A. Roy, 73–197. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  114. Tuan, Y.F. 1989. Surface phenomena and aesthetic experience. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 79: 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Tulowiecki, S.J., and C.P. Larsen. 2015. Native American impact on past forest composition inferred from species distribution models, Chautauqua County, New York. Ecological Monographs 85: 557–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Turner, M. 2015. Political ecology II: Engagements with ecology. Progress in Human Geography 40: 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Urban, M.A. 2002. Conceptualizing anthropogenic change in fluvial systems: Drainage development on the upper Embarras River, Illinois. The Professional Geographer 54: 204–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Urban, Michael A. this volume. In defence of crappy landscapes (Core Tenet #1).Google Scholar
  119. Vale, T.R. 2002. The pre-European landscape of the United States: Pristine or humanized. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  120. Wainwright, J. 2008. Can modelling enable us to understand the rôle of humans in landscape evolution? Geoforum 39: 659–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Walker, P.A. 2005. Political ecology: Where is the ecology? Progress in Human Geography 29: 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Watts, M. 1983. Silent violence: Food, famine, and peasantry in Northern Nigeria. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  123. Wesselink, A.J., H.J.d. Vriend, H.J. Barneveld, M.S. Krol, and W.E. Bijker. 2009. Hydrology and hydraulics expertise in participatory processes for climate change adaptation in the Dutch Meuse Water. Water Science and Technology 60: 583–595.Google Scholar
  124. Whatmore, S.J. 2013. Where natural and social science meet? Reflections on an experiment in geographical practice. In Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences, ed. A. Barry and G. Born, 161–177. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  125. Wilcock, D., G. Brierley, and R. Howitt. 2013. Ethnogeomorphology. Progress in Physical Geography 37: 573–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Woldenberg, M.J., and B.J.L. Berry. 1967. Rivers and central places: Analogous systems? Journal of Regional Science 7: 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Wynne, B. 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning—reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global and Environmental Change—Human and Policy Dimensions 2: 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Zimmerer, K.S. 1994. Human geography and the “new ecology”: The prospect and promise of integration. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84: 108–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. ———. 2000. The reworking of conservation geographies: Nonequilibrium landscapes and nature-society hybrids. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90: 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. ———. 2010. Retrospective on nature–society geography: Tracing trajectories (1911–2010) and reflecting on translations. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100: 1076–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart N. Lane
    • 1
  • Christine Biermann
    • 2
  • Rebecca Lave
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Earth Surface Dynamics, Université de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations