Commitments and Future of Systemic Regional Geography

Abstract

Geographers — at least some of them — as well as people outside geography, are asking if there is besides its epistemological contribution, a socio-cultural message of geography. This is to say that geography should be some responsible, have some value [Fien, 1981] making geography worthy of existence as a social asset [Cowie, 1978]. This is, of course, a very subjective approach. As with most intellectual activities, geography can be used and misused [p. 19]. Morrill [1984] sees many facets of geographical responsibility, which can overlap and converge, but which also can conflict with one another. The first responsibility is to truth and scientific integrity. Science is the principal means by which a common understanding of knowledge can be advanced. The responsibility goes further is the discipline of geography: a geographer should have a rigorous training in both geographical content and geographical method. The geographer is also responsible for the teaching of geography in schools. The geographer’s responsibility to the Earth results from his subject within humanist-environmental issues, followed by his responsibility to community, to society, to humanity. These last can create a conflict, or at least a dilemma responsibility to any nation is, at least for some geographers, of primordial importance, and certainly can conflict with other values. Consider the Geographer working in his nation’s War Intelligence Service [Bobek, quoted by Buttimer, 1983]: is he not in conflict over his dual responsibility to Humanity and to his nation?

La société se crée en créant son espace — les deux forment un tout indissociable qui entraîne la même évolution. [The society creates itself by creating its space; the two produce an indissociable entity which shares the same evolution (transl. D.N.).] H. Isnard, 1978