In a previous post concerning the need for continued justification of geography as a school subject I suggested that one possible route towards such a justification is to call attention to geography's holistic nature. What evidence do we have that geography has such a nature, and why might gaining a holistic understanding of humans and their environment be of any use to a young person growing up in this century? I didn't have the room to delve into this issue in that post, and I don’t believe it is one that can be dealt with hurriedly. However, I will begin my investigation with a look at the work of Alistair Bonnett (2008), who has written a very impressive introduction to geography, one that should be read by all with an interest in the subject.
Bonnett shows how in the nineteenth century geography was primarily an integrative and synthesising tradition. Leading figures such as Humboldt, Ritter and Mackinder saw connection to be at the very core of this tradition. This profoundly influenced the subsequent evolution of the academic discipline. "For many years and well into the last century, Humboldt’s ambition to approach the human and natural world as one, interconnected and whole, was at the forefront of academic geography." (Bonnett, 2008: 34) This puts geography very much in contradistinction to other disciplines, whose tendency throughout this time was to move towards ever finer specialisation. This continues to be the case today. Bonnett writes that geography is both "a reflection of and a rebellion against" the modern age. Its rebellion lies precisely in its propensity to work with a unified portrait of human and natural worlds and its tendency to cross intellectual boundaries.
Bonnett asserts that 'we moderns' have trouble making connections as we live in an era of specialisation. Yet the holistic, pre-modern roots of geography may contain some vital wisdom for our times. The environmental crisis shows us that a renewed understanding of our relationship to the Earth is of no small importance. Indeed, Bonnett writes that "unless we take an integrated view of the relationship between human activity and nature the world will become uninhabitable." (Ibid: 87) In order to show that this fear of a disconnection between the human and the natural is not a completely new phenomenon, Bonnett quotes the geographer Halford Mackinder (1861-1947):
"One of the greatest of all gaps lies between the natural sciences and the study of humanity. It is the duty of the geographer to build one bridge over an abyss which in the opinion of many is upsetting the equilibrium of our culture." (Quoted in Ibid: 88)
These words are evocative and still sound highly relevant today. Unfortunately, as Bonnett points out, many present day undergraduate geography textbooks fail to bridge this abyss and still treat human and physical geography as entirely separate disciplines that rarely meet. I think we can add that school geography curricula and exam specifications at all levels also treat the two geographies in this way, with many being divided into two parts that deal with the human and the physical discretely. Obviously, there are overlaps, but it seems that there is much scope for taking some inspiration from these early geographical luminaries and figure out a way that we could devise a less rigidly divided geography curriculum, one which is more integrative and focuses on the connections between physical and human worlds.
These days, we keep hearing that children are increasingly disconnected from nature (for example, in the work of Richard Louv, who calls this phenomenon nature-deficit disorder) and that this causes all kinds of emotional and cognitive imbalances. It might not be so wild to suggest that geography might have a substantial contribution to make in improving this state of affairs, due to its synthesising approach to studying the Earth, and its tradition of fieldwork and other out of classroom experiences.
Bonnett, A. (2008) What is geography? London: Sage.
No comments:
Post a Comment