Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Table of contents
The Schaefer-Hartshorne Debate: Introduction
The field of geography has witnessed a significant debate between two prominent scholars, Schaefer and Hartshorne, concerning the nature and direction of the discipline. This article delves into their arguments, highlighting Schaefer’s call for geography to embrace scientific positivism and focus on spatial arrangements, and Hartshorne’s defense of the chorological concept and emphasis on the uniqueness of individual cases.
Although their positions seemed divergent, there was an underlying agreement on the importance of spatial patterns in geography. Ultimately, this debate sparked a shift towards a more quantitative and theoretical approach in the field.
Schaefer’s Critique of Exceptionalism in Geography
Schaefer, an economist turned geographer, expressed his discontent with the prevailing regional paradigm of geography as chorology in his influential paper, “Exceptionalism in Geography.” He challenged the notion that geography should be exempt from adopting a systematic perspective due to the uniqueness of places and regions. Schaefer argued that other sciences, such as physics and economics, also deal with unique phenomena but still rely on general laws for explanation.
He advocated for geographers to formulate laws governing the spatial distribution of phenomena, emphasizing that geography’s primary concern lies in the spatial arrangements themselves rather than the phenomena they entail.
The Need for Interdisciplinary Collaboration
In line with his call for scientific positivism, Schaefer emphasized the importance of establishing effective channels of communication with other social science disciplines. He believed that geographers needed to interact more freely with these fields to gain a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between spatial arrangements and the underlying process laws that govern their functions. Schaefer aligned with Ackerman in promoting interdisciplinary teamwork, recognizing its potential for advancing geographic knowledge.
Hartshorne’s Rebuttal and Defense of Chorological Geography
Hartshorne, in response to Schaefer’s critique, offered a well-argued defense of the chorological concept in geography. He contended that geography’s primary objective was to describe and interpret the variable character of the Earth’s surface in relation to human activities. While acknowledging the importance of time, Hartshorne asserted that geography’s “primary concern” was to describe the present spatial configurations resulting from the interaction of various phenomena. He proposed that historical geography, as a branch of the discipline, could solely focus on the study of past geographies.
Reconciling Differences: Patterns and Ends
Despite their apparent differences, Schaefer and Hartshorne shared a fundamental agreement on the significance of spatial patterns in geography. Hartshorne recognized the existence of an “essential agreement” between their perspectives, as both scholars aimed to identify spatial patterns in their work. However, they differed in the weight they ascribed to these patterns within the field.
Schaefer viewed the identification of laws about spatial relationships as geography’s raison d’être, while Hartshorne believed that a primary emphasis on generalization could overshadow the richness and uniqueness of specific regions.
The Shift towards Quantification and Theory
By the end of the 1950s, Schaefer’s view of geography as a spatial science gained increasing acceptance among geographers. Scholars began adopting methods from other systematic sciences and became more inclined towards quantification and the development of theories. This movement, known as the quantitative revolution, reached its peak during this period.
The contrast between Schaefer and Hartshorne’s positions may have been more apparent than real, as both recognized the value of spatial patterns and their potential for understanding geographic phenomena.
Conclusion
The Schaefer-Hartshorne debate in geography revolved around the shift from regional exceptionalism to generalization and theory. Schaefer’s call for geography to adopt scientific positivism and focus on spatial arrangements resonated with many geographers who sought a more systematic and rigorous approach to the discipline.
On the other hand, Hartshorne defended the chorological concept of geography, emphasizing the unique character of individual cases and the richness they bring to the field. While Schaefer and Hartshorne presented seemingly conflicting views, their disagreement was more about the ultimate goals of geography rather than the means of achieving them.
Both scholars recognized the importance of spatial patterns in understanding geographic phenomena, although they differed in the extent to which they prioritized generalization and theory. Schaefer advocated for the formulation of laws governing spatial distribution, while Hartshorne emphasized the significance of individual cases and their contextual complexities.
Ultimately, the Schaefer-Hartshorne debate contributed to a significant shift in the discipline of geography. As more geographers embraced Schaefer’s perspective, the quantitative revolution gained momentum, leading to increased use of quantitative methods and the development of theories to explain spatial phenomena. The discipline moved towards a more scientific and interdisciplinary approach, acknowledging the need to collaborate with other social sciences.
In conclusion, the Schaefer-Hartshorne debate marked an important turning point in geography, challenging the traditional regional exceptionalism and paving the way for a more systematic and theoretical approach. While their positions seemed divergent, there was an underlying agreement on the significance of spatial patterns in geography. This debate stimulated a transformation in the field, driving geographers to embrace scientific positivism, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the study of spatial arrangements as essential aspects of geographic inquiry.
You May Also Like
2 Responses
This is so crisp and easy to understand.Ty 🙂