Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
Dichotomy between General Geography and Regional Geography
This dichotomy between ‘general’ and ‘regional’ was first raised by Bernhard Varen (also known as Varenius) in the 17th century. In his groundbreaking work, Geographia Generalis, published in 1650, Varenius recognized general geography as a sub-discipline focused on formulating general laws and principles. Later, this sub-discipline came to be known as systematic geography, as it drew knowledge from other systematic disciplines to develop universal ideas.
General geography, or systematic geography, views the world as a whole and explores the interrelationships between different phenomena. On the other hand, regional geography focuses on describing specific regions or countries, aiming to depict their distinctive features and patterns.
Alexander von Humboldt, often regarded as the father of modern geography, further classified geography into two branches: geography and uranography. Uranography, described as ‘descriptive astronomy,’ dealt with celestial bodies, while geography studied the interplay of phenomena within a particular area.
According to Richthofen, regional geography is primarily descriptive, aiming to portray the prominent characteristics of a specific region. It seeks to identify and illustrate the distinct features that contribute to the formation of a homogenous pattern within that region.
In contrast, general geography focuses on the spatial distribution of geographical features, examining how these elements are distributed across different areas. Richthofen’s perspective highlights the importance of understanding both the unique qualities of a region and the broader spatial patterns found in general geography.
Friedrich Ratzel, a prominent figure in the field, introduced a deductive approach to geography. He focused on understanding the origins of things rather than their interdependence. Ratzel’s ideas were influenced by Darwin’s concept of survival of the fittest, which he applied to human societies. However, his approach faced opposition from Vidal de Lablache, who advocated for specific studies of regions (pays) and emphasized the principle of a ‘terrestrial whole.’
Over time, the popularity of regional geography waned, giving rise to three distinct branches: general geography, compage regional geography, and descriptive geography. However, some scholars, like Berry, argue that regional and general geography are not mutually exclusive but exist along a continuum. They believe that these two concepts can complement each other, representing different approaches to understanding geographic phenomena.
During the 1980s and 1990s, several major concerns arose within the field of geography:
1. Epistemology of Observation: There was a lack of emphasis on the epistemological aspects of observation, which are essential for developing a deeper understanding of geographical phenomena.
2. Shifting Focus in Regional Geography: Some regional geographers began to place more emphasis on social structures and customs, leading to a more abstract approach in regional geography.
3. Spatial Differences and Alternative Explanations: There were arguments that modern traditions were erasing spatial differences, prompting the exploration of alternative modes of explanation such as ‘cognitive mapping’ to understand hyperspace and the influence of postmodernism in Western cultures.
In summary, the concepts of general and regional geography have evolved over time, with scholars offering different perspectives and approaches. While general geography focuses on universal laws and principles, regional geography delves into the unique characteristics of specific regions. The field continues to evolve, addressing contemporary concerns and exploring new dimensions of geographical study.
You May Also Like
One Response