MEANING OF DUALISM AND DICHOTOMY IN GEOGRAPHY

• The word ‘dualism’ simply connotes the state of being divided. For any domain of
knowledge therefore, it means two conceptually contrasted stances. Dualism finally leads to
‘dichotomy’ which means the bifurcation of any subject into branches of knowledge.
• Ever since its inception as a domain of knowledge, geography has been encountered with
several methodological issues that eventually gave birth to several dualisms and
dichotomies in the subject. Such sort of dualism was prevalent even in the classical or
medieval periods of geographical history. Greek scholars like Aristotle, Herodotus or
Hecataeus emphasized on physical geography;
• Roman scholars like Strabo insisted on regional geography while Ptolemy stressed on
mathematical geography; and,
• the Arab scholars like Al-Masudi, Al-Biruni or AlIdrisi highlighted on the importance of the
physical environment. However, such dualisms were very equivocal and abstruse.

Some of the most conspicuous dualisms known to have existed in geography were:

• General (Systematic) Geography versus Regional Geography.

• Physical Geography versus Human Geography.
• Historical Geography versus Contemporary Geography.

SYSTEMATIC GEOGRAPHY VERSUS REGIONAL GEOGRAPHY

The dichotomy between systematic and regional geography was essentially rooted in another
dualism that existed in the approaches to study geography. This dualism was between the
Idiographic or Inductive Approach and the Nomothetic or Deductive Approach. The dichotomy
between the two approaches may be explicated as—

• the idiographic or empirical approach did not seek to develop laws but mainly focused on
the description of places in the context of their lands, seas or places and attempt to find its
relationship with other places.
• The nomothetic or deductive approach on the other hand, sought to establish laws and
made general deductions based on those laws.

Dualism in geography was formally introduced in the 17th century which is often described as the
classical period of modern geography by the German geographer, Bernhard Varenius. Using the
terms of Bartholomew Keckermann a German philosopher, Varenius in his ‘Geographia Generalis’
partitioned geography into-

• Special geography essentially concerned with the description of particular places on the
basis of direct observations. This branch of geography was assumed to have great practical
importance for governance and commerce.
• General geography based on universally applicable mathematical or astronomical laws.
Gradually, general geography evolved into systematic geography by incorporating the methods of
the systematics sciences, while special geography evolved into regional geography. In simple words,
the two may be expounded as----

• the study of the natural vegetation of the world is a systematic approach while,
• the study of a continent with respect to its natural vegetation, landforms, climate etc. is a
regional approach.

The prominent German geographer Alexander von Humboldt followed Varenius and laid the
foundation of systematic geography. In his famous book ‘Cosmos’ Humboldt asserted that
geography was meant to understand the ‘harmonious unity of the cosmos.’

He distinguished between uranography as descriptive astronomy dealing with the celestial bodies
and, geography as dealing with the terrestrial part with the prime objective of deciphering the unity
that exists in the vast diversity of phenomena.

In fact, Humboldt opined that like other phenomena, humans were basically a part of the nature.
Knowledge of the natural or physical phenomena was categorized by Humboldt as:

• Systematic Sciences: This included sciences like botany, zoology or geology that classified
phenomena according to their form and grouped them on the basis of certain
commonalities.
• Historical Sciences: This dealt with the development of phenomena over time.
• Geography or Earth Sciences: This concerned itself with the spatial distribution and spatial
relationship and interdependence of phenomena. It included all earth phenomena whether
organic or inorganic.

According to Carl Ritter, a contemporary of Humboldt, geography was concerned with

‘lokalverhaltnisse’ or local conditions which described a spatial unit on the basis of three
characteristics---

• topographical, concerned with the delineation of natural divisions on the earth’s surface;
• formal, which dealt with the distribution and movement of such phenomena as water, air
etc. that constituted the bases of human life;
• material, which dealt with the distribution of biotic life, minerals etc.

Ritter provided the above purpose of geography in his famous ‘Erdkunde.’ It was Ritter who
introduced the inductive method in geography. He sought to develop a regional geography for which
he used ‘erdteile’ or continents as his units of study. He was of the idea that all continents had
similar physical features and thus divided each continent into a highland core drained by major
rivers of the land and, a low-lying coastland at the periphery.
Thereafter, in the late 19th century, geographers were highly influenced by the Darwinian doctrine
and made significant contributions in furthering systematic geography. The most prominent among
them were Ferdinand von Richtofen and Friedrich Ratzel.

• Richtofen perceived geography in the same line as Humboldt as, the science of the earth’s
surface as well as the phenomena on it that were causally interrelated with it. According to
him, the purpose of systematic geography was to provide an understanding of the
interrelationship and causality of phenomena on the earth’s surface which could be used for
deducing about individual regions as well. He provided a guideline for the systematic study
of the earth’s surface. Richtofen also differentiated between general or systematic
geography as analytic and regressive that was based on general concepts and, special or
regional geography as synthetic and descriptive dealing with the unique and peculiar.

• Friedrich Ratzel in his ‘Anthropogeographie’ set a framework for the systematic study of
human geography and thus set a new trend in the subject. Prior to him, systematic
geography only involved physical geography and, human geography was mainly confined
within regional studies. His anthropogeographie was essentially a reflection of the Darwinian
viewpoints and emphasized on the concept of natural selection that was used in the natural
sciences. Ratzel was of the view that cultural differences of a land were much more
prominent than the physical differences. Ratzel’s concept of geography was based on two
propositions---(i) the interrelation of environment and humans and
(ii) the interrelations of humans.

• Alfred Hettner distinguished between systematic geography as that which was interested in
formulating general laws and theories and, regional geography as concerned with the study
of peculiarities in which the generalisations were tested to improvise on the existing
theories.
• The regional tradition was again revived by the French geographer Vidal de la Blache. He
introduced the concept of ‘pays’ or small local units as ideal units of study for the
geographers which could even be used to arrive at general conclusions. He was contested
however, by Reclus with his ‘Le Terra’ that was centered on systematic physical geography.

The dichotomy between systematic and regional geography subsequently led to the Hartshorne-
Schaefer debate. While Hartshorne in his ‘Nature of Geography’ advocated that geography was
regional in its essence and put forward his concept of areal differentiation’, his views were refuted
by Schaefer as ‘Hartshorian Orthodoxy’ who called for a systematic scientific approach for
geographical studies.

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY VERSUS HUMAN GEOGRAPHY

It was Varenius again as one of the first scholars to highlight on the differences in the nature and
content of physical and human geography.
Following him, was Immanuel Kant who offered a regular course of lectures on physical geography
between 1756 to 1796 at the University of Konigsberg According to Kant, physical geography not
only included the features visible on the earth’s surface created by natural processes but also by
human actions. Kant opined that physical geography was the first part of knowledge of the world
and was essential to develop the basic understanding of the earth as the abode of humans and for
furthering philosophical studies.

After Kant, it was Humboldt who stressed upon the study of physical geography.

Since he believed in the ‘unity of nature,’ in his opinion, physical geography was the study of
phenomena arranged on the earth’s surface and mutually related to each other that constituted the
‘natural whole.’ Humboldt was of the view that differences in the economic, social and political
conditions of different spatial units were largely a function of differences in natural conditions. Thus,
according to him, human factors were subordinate to the natural factors.

On the contrary, by upholding the teleological view Ritter’s view of geography was anthropocentric
in nature. Ritter conceived the earth as created by God with a ‘purpose’ to educate humans and
facilitate in their development. Ritter’s anthropocentric geography stated that the way natural
phenomena of any spatial unit affected its inhabitants, the inhabitants could also have an influence
on the land.

In the second half of the 19th century, more and more geographers were inclined towards physical
geography.

It is believed that Hettner accorded greater importance to the physical environment in comparison
to cultural environment.

German geographer, Albrecht Penck coined the term ‘geomorphology’ as the study of landforms
and established it as a distinctive sub-field of physical geography.

It was Penck who formulated the principles of ‘landform evolution.’ He also highlighted on the
importance of relief maps in the systematic study of geographical elements.

American geographer William Morris Davis also put forward his ‘normal cycle of erosion.’ There
were other scholars like Koppen, Martonne, Mill, and Dokuchaiev who put greater emphasis on
landforms or climate as the major focus of geography.

Semple went forward to explain humans as ‘product of the earth’s surface.’

Mackinder, Chisholm, Herberton and Huntington----all of them recognized physical geography as

the core of the discipline of geography.

Over the years, several sub-fields of physical geography have evolved like geomorphology,
climatology, oceanography, pedology, biogeography and environmental geography.

The human element in geography was formally introduced in the work of Ratzel which actually gave
rise to the dichotomy between physical and human geography.
Ratzel in his ‘Anthropogeographie’ described geography as the study of humans in the context of
different races. But, Ratzel too was influenced by the Darwinian views and incorporated two major
Darwinian tenets in his works-----

• struggle and natural selection and

• association and organization.

He used these themes in drawing an analogy between the political units and living organisms and
thus came to be known as the father of political geography.

However, it was the French geographer, Vidal de la Blache who may be regarded as the founding
father of modern human geography.

His ‘Principles de Geographie Humaine’, had several parts each devoted to several aspects of
human geography.

The Vidalienne tradition was carried forward by his ardent follower Jean Brunhes who propagated
Blache’s views of human geography not only within France but in other parts of the world as well.

French historian Lucien Febvre was also inspired by the Vidalienne human geography. He put
forward that humankind emerged as a powerful agent of modifying the earth’s surface through
centuries of their accumulated labour and decision-making.

American geographer Isaiah Bowman also championed the cause of human approach in geography.

In 1924, American geographer Carl O. Sauer propounded his ‘landscape paradigm’ in which he
highlighted on humans as agent of ‘fashioning’ the natural landscape.

Over the years, studies in human geography has led to various sub-branches in this field as------
population geography, settlement geography, economic geography, social geography, cultural
geography, political geography, historical geography and so on.

The dichotomy that existed between two prominent philosophies of geography namely,
environmental determinism and possibilism could be attributed to the dualism between physical
and human geography. In fact, the two revolutions that geography underwent namely, the positive-
quantitative revolution and the critical revolution were somehow related to this dichotomy. This
may be justified by the fact that while the former attempted to introduce the methodologies of the
systematic sciences in geography as had been mostly done in the field of physical geography, the
latter developed as a critique of the former mainly emphasized on the ‘humane’ essence of the
subject.
HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY VERSUS CONTEMPORARY GEOGRAPHY

That all history should be treated geographically, and all geography historically was asserted by
the Greek scholar Herodotus.

Thereafter, Immanuel Kant opined that since any individual’s experience was restricted to a specific
time and space, his knowledge had to be supplemented with the experiences of others.

Such knowledge derived indirectly from others could be divided into two types—(i) narrative or, (ii)
descriptive.

While history was narrative, geography was descriptive. Thus, history and geography made up the
entire gamut of empirical knowledge—the former that of time and the latter that of space

Therefore, the importance of historical approach to geographical studies was acknowledged. The
dichotomy between historical and contemporary geography also came to be regarded as an
important dualism in geography.

Historical geography dealt with the geographical description of any spatial unit as it had been in the
past. The work of S. M. Ali, ‘The Geography of the Puranas’ in which he endeavoured to provide a
geographical account of ancient India, could be considered as a remarkable work in this field. The
contributions of the American geographer, Ralph Brown in the field of historical geography was also
of great prominence. In fact, the Vidalienne tradition also adopted a historical approach.

However, historical geography could not be treated as a conventional field of geography as of

contemporary geography. Hence, limited works could be found in this domain of study.
Nevertheless, it incorporated in it both systematic and regional studies and included all the possible
aspects of geographical knowledge.

The scope and content of historical geography were centred on the following themes:

• The Geographical Factor in History: In the latter part of the 19th century historical
geography was conceived to be associated with the study of the mutual relations of
phenomena over space in a particular period of time or, to study the impact of geographical
phenomena in shaping the history of a region. Whittlesey emphasized on the study of
historical factors in geography as it was thought to provide a spatio-temporal framework to
study any spatial unit.
• Changing Cultural Landscape: Historical geography was also considered to be the study of
the cultural landscape as it existed in the past in any area such as, the settlement or the
cropping patterns, house types etc.
• Reconstruction of Past Geographies: This was an important aspect of historical geography.
Since it embraced all fields of geographical knowledge, reconstruction of past geographies
was essential for contemporary geographers as it enabled them to interpret the
geographical phenomena of any spatial unit in present times in a more comprehensive
manner.
• Geographical Changes through Time: The concept of space had always been a central focus
in geography. Geographical phenomena over space, whether natural or cultural changed
with time which in turn, changed the character of space. The study of these geographical
changes with time was of utmost importance to the geographers.
Contemporary geography on the other hand included all the geographical knowledge of modern
times. In fact, contemporary geography had also witnessed the emergence of the modern and post-
modern era with a constant revamping of approaches and methodologies in the geographical
discipline.

DUALISMS IN GEOGRAPHY---A MYTH OR A REALITY

It is a fact that methodological differences had given rise to several dualisms in geography but the
question that arises is that, whether the dichotomies that resulted from such dualisms had produced
exclusive fields of knowledge or whether they are mutually related and transcended into one
another. To be the precise, the question is whether dualisms in geography were a myth or a reality.

Varenius who actually introduced the tradition of dualism in geography, while categorizing between
general and special geography asserted that they were mutually interdependent branches of
geography.

Humboldt recognized the interdependence of areal phenomena and opined that to understand a
whole comprised of multiple phenomena it was essential to have knowledge about the constituents
of that whole.

Similarly, though Ritter adopted an inductive approach he acknowledged the contributions of

Humboldt’s systematic studies that enabled him to undertake special studies of regions.

Richtofen on one hand while attempted to follow the precedence of Humboldt in establishing the
affinity between geography and the natural sciences, on the other hand he also tried to restore the
Ritterian tradition.

It was Hettner who actually removed the dualism of the idiographic and nomothetic approach in
geography. He stated that geography could involve both idiographic and nomothetic methods.

Both systematic and regional geographies could be regarded as the two extreme points of a
continuum that gradually merged into the other. In regional studies, the concept of ‘compage’ was
introduced by Derwent Whittlesey to explain that regional geography was not a mere description of
phenomena characteristic of any spatial unit but studied the functional association that existed
between human beings and their physical, biotic and social environment. Therefore, through these
arguments the dualism that is known to have existed between systematic and regional geography
seemed to have been blurred. The general could be deciphered only through the particular which in
turn, was not independent of the general.

The dualism to follow was between physical and human geography. In this too, the basic question
posed was whether humans could be studied in exclusion from nature. At the same time, natural
landscapes were occupied by humans. It was not possible to study human phenomena
independent of the natural landscape and natural phenomena without their relationship with
humans. So the major thrust was on the relationship between humans and environment that
constituted the central thesis of geography. This relationship however underwent several
modifications sometimes according greater importance to nature and sometimes to humans or
placed humans in harmony with nature.
In physical geography, while explaining the normal cycle of erosion or landform evolution analogy
was drawn with the lifecycle of humans, the concept of ‘pays’ in human geography involved small
‘natural’ regions. Thus, physical and human geography instead of being in contrast rather
complemented each other which in turn faded away the dualism between physical and human
geography.

Finally regarding the dualism between historical and contemporary geography, it may be stated
that contemporary geography would become a part of historical geography over time. To
comprehend the present it was highly essential to know the past. Therefore, historical geography
provided a base for studying contemporary phenomena and how they have evolved over time.
Hence, Mackinder asserted that historical geography was basically the study of the historical
present. So, even in case of the dualism between historical and contemporary geography it was
evident that one eventually led to the other and hence, their dualism also stood as illogical.