Four Fixations and the Quest for Unity in Geography

R. J. Johnston
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 11, No. 4. (1986), pp.
449-453.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-2754%281986%292%3A11%3A4%3C449%3AFFATQF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers is currently published by The Royal Geographical Society (with the
Institute of British Geographers).

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/rgs.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Wed Jul 18 09:45:08 2007

Four fixations and the quest for unity in

geography
R. J. JOHNSTON
Department of Geography, University of Shefield, Shefield SIO 2TN
M S received 24 February, 1986
ABSTRACT
The unity of geography is a political rallying-point within the discipline at the present time. This paper examines four
aspects of the argument for unity-human/physical integration; systematic fragmentation; spatial; and regional. It argues
that systematic fragmentation is the greatest impediment to unity and academic utility.

KEY WORDS: Human and physical geography, Systematic fragmentation, Regional, Place, Unity

M y initial premiss is that there is no natural necessity

for a discipline of geography, let alone for the
particular definition of geography widely promoted
in the United Kingdom. Like everything else in this
society, geography is a human creation, a response
to particular circumstances. Once it was established
and had gained recognition within the educational
system, it became part of the milieu into which
people (including those who become geography
promoters, i.e. geographers) were socialized;
reproduction of that milieu has involved sustaining
geography, on some occasions resisting change and
on others stimulating it. In talking about the unity of
geography, therefore, I am talking about how and
why we want to reproduce this particular segment
of our cultural milieu.
M y premiss is supported by the knowledge
(bolstered by the essays in Johnston and Claval, 1984)
that although a discipline called geography has been
established in a range of cultural contexts it has taken a
variety of forms. There is not one geography but
many geographies, created in response to circumstances specific to time and place and in the context of
the already-existing academic division of labour.
Thus, in discussing the unity of geography, I am not
concerned with some absolute concept, but the future
of the discipline that we in the U.K. have inherited
and which we are reproducing. (Parenthetically,
one of the problems in realizing this is the pressure
that we are under-especialli
from commercial
book publishers-to produce works that are saleable
in other milieux, notably the U.S.A.)
Trans. Insf. Br. Geogr. N.S. 11:449-453 (1986) ISSN: 002Ck2754

What, then, are the local issues that encourage us to

consider the unity of geography worthy of debate?
There are two sets (Johnston, 1985a). The first are
external, relating to the political problems of survival
for geography (and geographers) in the institutions
of further and higher education and in the secondary
school curricula (see Brunsden, 1985), and the
promotion of its relevance to the interests of a wide
range of potential sponsors. The second are internal,
and refer to how we structure research and teaching
in our discipline? I shall tackle the latter only, since it
is the logical precursor of the former; unless we have
a viable discipline to defend politically then external
promotional activity is at best of little point and at
worst irrelevant. The issues I shall deal with are: the
interrelationships of human and physical geography;
the fragmentation of study; and the role of space and
place (what I term the environmental, systematic,
spatial and regional fixations of geographers:
Johnston, 1986a).

PHYSICAL AND HUMAN

The environmental fix is one that continually haunts
us, as we debate ad infinifurn, or so it seems, issues
relating to the separation/integration of physical
and human geography. O n reflection, I have decided
that much of this debate is no more than talking
across rather than at each other, because of a major
semantic difference.
The word geography has two usages. The first is
the vernacular-it
refers to the discipline's subject
Printed in Great Britain

matter. In this sense, physical geography is equated geographers is itself an outcome of such meanings,
with the physical environment. The other is the but the subject matter of physical geographyacademic-it
refers to activity within the discipline. things-cannot
be equated with that of human
In this sense, physical geography is the study of the geography-people,
who are conscious decisionprocesses that produce the physical environment. makers drawing on memories and their cultural
(Other words that we use--such as geomorphology contexts.) There may be issues about whether both
-similarly have dual meanings). In much of the can be sensibly incorporated in the same curriculum
debate, there has been confusion over which usage is (as S. Gregory, 1978 and Worsley, 1985, argue), but
being employed. In general, those arguing for 'inte- these are pragmatic only. I would not claim that the
gration' seem to employ the vernacular usage for at two vernacular geographies should be separated, for
least one part of geography; a physical (academic) there is great merit in their symbiosis. But I would
geographer argues for the integration of human stress that they are different forms of science, and
(vernacular) geography into the study of landscape therefore not integrable (Johnston, 1 9 8 6 ~ ) .
processes, as in the impact of urbanization on runoff
rates, since no understanding of the causes of urbanization is called for. (Excellent examples of this are
THE FRAGMENTATION OF GEOGRAPHY
provided in books by Goudie, 1986, and by Douglas,
1984, neither of which is concerned with the processes I don't see the physical/human issue as important,
studied by human geographers but both of which therefore, and I am relatively content with the
illustrate the study of human impacts which is a major present accommodation. More work on the interface
strength of geographical study. They d o not integrate between the vernacular human and physical geograhuman and physical academic geography-i.e. 'form phies (as in Cooke, 1984) is desirable, for the area is
into a whole'-but
they do show the importance of academically underpopulated. But it does not raise
studying the human/physical interface: Johnston, important issues regarding the unity of geography.
1983). Those arguing against 'integration' focus on (Geography is not well served in the U.K., however,
the academic term; the human (academic)geographer when presented-as in Gould, 1985-as if the two
interested in population distributions is no more parts were entirely separate). Much more problematic
interested in the causes of the physical environment is the discipline's fragmentation, which does introduce
(such as the operation of jet streams) than in how a major issues relating to disunity.
television works, and so is not interested in physical
W e fragment human geography in two ways,
(academic) geography, only physical (vernacular) conceptually and locationally. The first gives us
geography. (This is true, for example, in the classic our systematic sub-disciplinary specialisms and the
studies of natural hazards by Gilbert White and his other our regional divisions. Such fragmentation (or
colleagues, e.g. Burton, Kates and White, 1978, as some fragmentation, not necessarily that which we
well as recent treatments of the physical environment currently practice) is necessary for the accumulation
as a resource, e.g. Rees, 1985).
of knowledge, but is only defensible if it is preceded
Once this simple point is gasped then, to me, and followed by synthesis; our synthesis is generally
the rationale for much of the debating disappears. poor, and much of our fragmentation (consider social
No human geographer would deny the necessity geography, for example: Johnston, 1986b)an example
of taking the physical environment into account, of what Sayer (1984) calls chaotic conceptionswhenever relevant, and all physical geographers abstractions from a whole of parts that cannot be
would accept that human activities can have major treated either as internally homogeneous or as suffiimpacts on environmental processes. Each needs the ciently separate from the rest of the whole to merit
vernacular of other. This is not, however, the base independent analysis. (P.Haggett, 1965, gave us a
for an argument that the two academic activities further form of conceptual fragmentation, according
point, surface etc.should, indeed can, be integrated. I believe that they to spatial morphology-line,
cannot, because they have different epistemologies, but this never caught on with the majority).
The problems of fragmentation are presented here
for one (human geography) but not the other is
dealing with a pre-interpreted world of meanings; in the context of human geography only. They
the subject matter is a human creation that is not revolve around the compartmentalization of a unified
subject to the operation of general laws. (There whole, that is global society. Unfortunately, much of
is an argument that what is studied by physical our work in recent decades has lacked any conception

Four f 2 cations

of the wholeness of that society, despite our lipservice to systems theory and analysis, and to
frameworks such as input-output matrices. Instead,
we tear apart the whole and present as separate
bodies of knowledge pieces-such
as agricultural
geography and urban geography-which
must be
linked. (Indeed, there is a powerful argument--e.g.
Dunleavy, 1982; Saunders, 1981-that a separate
urban focus is a chaotic conception). Such abstraction,
rational or chaotic conception, implies a system
of neat compartments for our knowledge, bound
together more by the analytical (i.e. statistical and
mathematical) procedures employed than by the
logical connections of the subject matter. Our separate sub-disciplinary specialisms provide particular
perspectives on and emphases regarding the whole;
they are necessary, but only as means to an end, not
as ends in themselves.
This argument is clearly exemplified by recent
writings on the importance of studying places as
wholes (e.g. Massey and Allen, 1984), following
Derek Gregory's (1978) argument for a revived
regional geography. The nature of a place (at a variety
of scales) involves three basic elements (Leeds, 1984):
(I) Its position in the spatial division of labourwhat is done there. This position may well be
influenced by the nature of the physical environment
(the arena of human activity, according to Haggett,
1979).
(2) The nature of social relations there, in general
(e.g. the relationships among racial and religious
groups) as well as in specific situations (e.g. the
nature of employer/employee relationships in the
workplace).
(3) The nature of the institutions created there, such
as those which are part of the state apparatus (Clark
and Dear, 1984).
Traditionally, these three have been isolated from
each other in human geography. The first element
has been the concern of economic geographers
(except at the intra-urban level, in the study of
residential differentiation); the second is the subject
matter of social geographers; and the third is the
focus of work by political geographers. Some such
division may be necessary for detailed analysis; but
recent work (e.g. Massey, 1984; McDowell and
Massey, 1984) has shown that it could well be
counter-productive; without an appreciation of
social relations in a place, for example, the changing
economic geography cannot be understood. (See
Peet, 1983, on the importance of appreciating social
relations in order to understand the geography of

45 1

manufacturing shift in the U.S.A., and Johnston,

1980, 1984a, on the role of state institutions in the
same context.) Increasingly, it seems, economic,
social and political geography are all attaining the
status of chaotic conceptions; the whole-global
society-is
not being sensibly subdivided for
geographical study.
Regional rather than systematic subdivision would
seem to provide a better approach, but regional
fragmentation can be just as dangerous as systematic,
for it too can imply that parts, this time defined by
their location, can be extracted and understood in
isolation. But no place is independent of events and
actions elsewhere, from the winds of change that are
gusting through global society at ever-increasing
speeds. Regions are identifiable entities and are
deserving of study, but not in the exceptionalist
mould (Johnston, 1984b); they must be seen as placebound responses to general tendencies (Johnston,
1985b).
The unity of human geography is seriously
threatened not by the fragmentation used to focus
on researchable topics, then, but by the failure to
consider what is a sensible fragmentation and how it
should be linked to holistic appreciation. As such, we
fail to contribute as substantially to understanding
society as we could, should, and indeed must.

SPACE AND PLACE

The division of knowledge, and the division of labour
in academia, is only defensible because of the sheer
size and complexity of the subject matter. Separate
disciplines, and sub-disciplines, must reflect the unity
of knowledge by promoting a valid perspective on
the whole. Geographers have for long argued that
the perspectives they bring to the understanding of
society are those of space, place and environment.
With regard to space, our excesses of the last
thirty years-here again I am dealing with human
geography-have not served us well: we have had
little influence on the entire corpus of social science,
and internal critics have shown that we have been
marooned up a spatial cul-de-sac (Blaikie, 1978).Space
is crucial to many of the operations of society-there
is a tyranny of distance. But its impact is much
more subtle and wide-ranging than our gravity
and distance-decay models have suggested, and
'geography as a discipline in distance' has failed to
produce major advances in understanding. W e
united around the wrong banner.
The importance of space in the structuring and

\IST O N

restructuring of society is that it is not simply an

independent variable-it
is both dependent and
independent variable. W e manipulate space, not just
in terms of cost-distance but in the creation of places,
locales (some with, some without clearly demarcated
boundaries) that are the culturally-defined milieux
within which economic, social and political decisions
are made. Places (called regions or not) matter,
because they are important contexts for learning
and are the repositories of the results of our lessons.
As others have persuasively argued in recent years
(D. Gregory, 1978; Massey and Allen, 1984) we have
a valid and important perspective on society within
geography; we just have not been looking in that
direction recently. W e must show how people have
created places, how the processes of socialization in
places create people (Pred, 1984a), and how people
change places and themselves through these processes. Without such an appreciation of the role of
place-bound and -structured human agency we will
never be able to account satisfactorilv for that which
we observe, whether it is the rise of Boston as a world
trade centre (Pred, 1984b) or the unique response of
the Dukeries coalfield to the 1984-5 National Union
of Mine Worker's strike (Johnston, 1986d). We must
produce general theories of the economic, social and
political manipulation of space (as in Harvey, 1982,
1985a), in order to understand particular events,
places and periods (Harvey, 1985b).

IN SUMMARY
Ultimately, whether or not academic geography survives is irrelevant. There will always be a vernacular
geography, which will be studied and taught.
Currently, however, academic geography exists to
promote research and teaching into vernacular
geography. It is an enterprise of very substantial
value that is worth defending. Such defence requires
a unity of purpose. This is not provided by the
unnecessary and impossible claims typical of the
environmental fix, nor is it provided by the myopic
spatial fix; it certainly will not be advanced by the
systematic fix. What we need is a unity based on
the holistic viewpoints of environmental and social
science, the understanding of which is advanced
through the application of geographical perspectives,
as are the interactions between the two. Then we
will have academic human and physical geographers
contributing to their relevant sciences, and academic
geography which links the vernacular pair.

REFERENCES
BLAIKIE, P. M. (1978) 'The theory of the spatial diffusion
of innovations: a spacious cul-de-sac', Prog. Hum.
Geogr. 2: 268-95
BRUNSDEN, D. (1985) Voice for geography', The Geogr.
Mag. 5 7: 464-5
BURTON, I., KATES, R. W. and WHITE, G. F. (1978)
The environment as hazard (Oxford University Press,
New York)
CLARK, G. L. and DEAR, M. J. (1984) State apparatus
(George Allen and Unwin, Boston)
COOKE, R. U. (1984) Geomorphological hazards in Los
Angeles (George Allen and Unwin, London)
DOUGLAS, I. (1984) The urban environment (Edward
Arnold, London)
DUNLEAVY, P. (1982) 'Perspectives on urban studies', in
BLOWERS, A. et al. (eds). Urban change and conflict:
an interdisciplinary reader (Harper and Row, London),
pp. 1-16
GREGORY, D. (1978) Ideology, science and human
geography (Hutchinson, London)
GOUDIE, A. S. (1986) The human impact (2nd ed.) (Basil
Blackwell, Oxford)
GOULD, P. R. (1985) The geographer at work (Routledge
and Kegan Paul, London)
GREGORY, S. (1978) 'The role of physical geography in
the curriculum', Geography 63: 2 5 1 4 4
HAGGETT, P. (1965) Locational analysis in human
geography (Edward Arnold, London)
HAGGETT, P. (1979) Geography: a modem synthesis
(third edition) (Harper and Row, London)
HARVEY, D. (1982) The limits to capital (Basil Blackwell,
Oxford)
HARVEY, D. (1985a) The urbanization of capital (Basil
Blackwell, Oxford)
HARVEY, D. (1985b) Consciousness and the urban
experience (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
JOHNSTON, R. J. (1980) The geography of federal
spending in the United States Uohn Wiley, Chichester)
JOHNSTON, R. J. (1983) 'Resource analysis, resource
management and the integration of human and physical
geography', Prog. Physical Geogr. 7: 127-46
JOHNSTON, R. J. (1984a) Residential segregation, the
state and constitutional conflict in American urban areas
(Academic Press, London)
JOHNSTON, R. J. (1984b) 'The world is our oyster',
Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 9: 443-59
JOHNSTON, R. J. (1985a) 'Introduction: exploring the
future of geography', in JOHNSTON, R. J. (ed.) The
future of geography (Methuen, London), pp. 3-26
JOHNSTON, R. J. (1985b) 'To the ends of the earth',
JOHNSTON, R. J. (ed.) The future of geography
(Methuen, London), pp. 326-38
JOHNSTON, R. J. (1986a) O n human geography (Basil
Blackwell, Oxford)
JOHNSTON, R. J. (1986b) 'Theory and method in social

Four fixations

geography', in PACIONE, M. (ed.) Developments in

social geography (Croom Helm, Beckenham)
JOHNSTON, R. J. (1986~)'Philosophy, ideology and
geography', in GREGORY, D. and WALFORD, R. (eds)
New horiwns in geography (Macmillan, London)
JOHNSTON, R. J. (1986d) 'The neighbourhood effect
revisited', Environ. and Plann. D: Soc. and Space 4:
JOHNSTON, R. J. and CLAVAL, P. (eds) (1984) Geography
since the Second World War: an international survey
(Croom Helm, Beckenham)
LEEDS, A. (1984) 'Cities and countryside in anthropology',
in RODWIN, L. and HOLLISTER, R. M. (eds) Cities of
the mind (Plenum Press, New York), 291-312
MASSEY. D. (1984) Spatial divisions of labour (Macmillan,
London)
MASSEY. D. and ALLEN, J. (eds) (1984) Geography
matters! (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
MCDOWELL, L. and MASSEY, D. (1984) 'A woman's
place?' in MASSEY. D. and ALLEN, J. (eds) Geography

453

matters! (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), pp.

128-47
PEET, J. R. (1983) 'Relations of production and the relocation of United States manufacturing industry since
1960', Econ. Geogr. 59: 112-43
PRED, A. R. (1984a) 'Place as historically contingent
process', Ann. Ass. A m . Geogr. 74: 279-97
PRED, A. R. (1984b) 'Structuration, biography formation,
and knowledge', Environ. and Plann. D: Soc, and Space
2: 25 1-76
REES, J. (1985) Natural resources: allocation, economics,
policy (Methuen, London)
SAUNDERS, P. (1981) Social theory and the urban question
(Hutchinson, London)
SAYER, A. (1984) Method in social science: a realist
approach (Hutchinson, London)
WORSLEY, P. (1985) 'Physical geography and the natural
environmental sciences', in JOHNSTON, R. J. (ed.) The
future ofgeography (Methuen, London), pp. 27-42