COMPARISON OF THE ORGANIZATION IN GEOGRAPHY WITH THATIN OTHER INTEGRATING SCIENCES

The conclusion that systematic and regional geography are two coordinate forms of organization of knowledge in our field may have raised a question in the reader's mind--as it did in the writer's--concerning the position among the sciences to which we have assigned geography in general. If geography is to be classified as a chorographic science along with astronomy, and these are to be included with the historical fields as integrating sciences, should we not logically expect a corresponding division in each of these fields between the systematic and the sectional (regional or periodic) approach? At first glance, at least, one might suppose that almost all of astronomy would be included under the systematic approach, almost all of history in the study of periods. Insofar as this is the case, does it cast doubt on our thesis of the logical similarity of geography to these fields?

Although astronomy and geography are both concerned with the study of spatial integrations--things related to each other in space--the character of the spaces that they study and the things interrelated within them are so completely different that no amount of logical similarity should lead us to expect similar results in the developments of the two fields. For much the greater part of his work the astronomer may consider celestial space as extraordinarily simple, consisting on the one hand of homogeneous ether--which in much of his work, he may regard simply as empty space--and on the other hand of masses of inanimate matter, most of which are sharply defined units widely separated and therefore related to each other essentially as whole units. Within any celestial region--e.g., that occupied by the solar system--the problem of integration is little, if anything, more than the systematic problem of the relations between these unit masses, a problem primarily concerned with their effects on each other's position and motions, studied in terms of but two factors, gravity and free motion in space. Even within systematic astronomy, however, not all the findings can as yet be reduced to scientific laws. Though the motion of the sun

in reference to other stars has been measured, the laws determining that motion have not been constructed, possibly never can be.

Astronomy does include studies corresponding to those of regional geography. These are represented most clearly by the detailed examination of those units in the solar system that are near enough so that differences between different parts may be observed. In the same category, though different in character, are studies of the groupings of stars in our universe, and the detailed examination of individual stellar nebulae.

If astronomy is largely concerned with systematic studies because of the relative simplicity of its subject matter, exactly the reverse is the case in the historical sciences. Of this group, historical geology shows most clearly the distinction between the systematic and the periodic approach. The study of climatic changes in past ages, of changes in mountain development, and, in general, the changes in the continental landforms, or the evolution of the horse--all represent systematic studies in the history of the earth. In contrast are studies which attempt to provide a generalized picture of associated phenomena of climate, landforms, and vegetable and animal life of the Upper Mississippian or any other past period in the history of the earth.

The comparison to which we have most repeatedly referred throughout our discussion of the nature of geography is, of course, that with history in the ordinary sense of the history of "historic times." Various students, however, have suggested that the comparison can only be related to regional geography, that history lacks systematic studies [cf. Penck, 158, 48-50].

We should not be misled by the fact that history is commonly taught only in terms of what we may call "periodic history." In their research problems historians frequently concentrate on the development and changes in some very restricted group of phenomena through a succession of years. Such studies may treat the development of a particular form of constitution, the growth of labor legislation, the changes in the price of wheat in England, or the development of roads in Minnesota.

Nevertheless, so far as an outsider may judge, the work of this character has by no means the importance to the field of history as a whole that systematic geography has to geography. In particular it has not yielded to history generic concepts and principles that are nearly as definite as those developed in systematic geography.

If one compares the particular problems studied in the two fields, as shown in their publications, it is obvious that historians are concerned with phenomena whose interrelations are far more complex than those commonly studied in geography. The logical basis for this difference is not so obvious; indeed our fundamental assumption of the relation of the two fields leads logically to the conclusion that the same phenomena may be studied in each field: history may consider areal phenomena and geography may consider historical events.

Neither history nor geography, however, need consider all the phenomena that are found in the sections of reality which they study, but only those phenomena which differ significantly in different sections of time or space, respectively. In each case the attention is chiefly focussed on those phenomena which differ most and whose differences are most significant to the total differentiation. In the total reality with which both history and geography are concerned--namely the phenomena of the world in historic times--there is one major group of phenomena, the natural phenomena, which are causally of fundamental importance to all the other phenomena, but which, while differing markedly in different areas of the world, differ but slightly in different periods of historic time. This, of course, constitutes a great difference between history, in the narrower sense, and pre-history, not to mention paleontology.

In consequence, the areal differences that are of greatest importance in geography are either differences in the natural features themselves or in cultural features which are closely related to the natural features. We would have a similar situation in history only if such features as climate and landforms had varied as radically through historic times at the same place, as they vary over the world at the same time. In other words, if the natural environment of England since the time of Caesar had varied from humid to arid, from polar to tropical, from plains to mountains, the agricultural history of England would represent the most important part of its history, and history would long since have developed the systematic branches of climatic history, landforms history, etc. Indeed, if Ellsworth Huntington's thesis of the historical importance of even minor variations in climate should be substantiated, it would be not only logical but necessary for history to develop a systematic study of climatic history--the study of the relations of climatic changes to other historical features.

In any case, the exceptional character of the example just cited tests the rule: the relative fixity of natural conditions during historic times results in a notable degree of constancy in those cultural features which are most closely related to natural conditions. The manner of land use in any area may remain much the same for centuries, in China, for millenia. Cities do not pass through a generic process of youth, maturity, and old age to death; they may continue in approximately the same condition for indefinite periods of time.

Consequently the phenomena which show the most notable differences in relation to time are cultural phenomena less closely related to natural conditions--commonly, therefore, phenomena of much more complicated character--such as manners and customs, political organization, inventions, etc. Furthermore, not only are these phenomena in themselves more complex than those with which geography is most concerned, but their interrelations through different periods of time are more complex than the interrelations of the principal geographic phenomena in different areas. Indeed, in most cases the character of one period of history, largely determines the character of the next, whereas the character of one area in geography has commonly but minor effect on the character of its neighbors. It is not surprising, therefore, that historians are more clearly aware of the fictional nature of their divisions of time than are geographers of their corresponding divisions of area.

On the other hand there are some sudden breaks in historical development that produce changes almost as great as the change from sea to land ingeography, namely, when new discoveries or inventions, or the migration of peoples, introduce a new culture into an area. The frontier of settlement in America during the past several centuries was not only a line marking great geographic contrasts but, as it passed through any region, it represented an historical revolution in the adaptation of man to nature. The historian of this revolution, therefore, must understand the principles governing the relation between cultural and natural features in order to study history. Much the same is true of such historical problems as the industrial revolution, and the associated agricultural revolution in Europe.

The historian who is concerned with these problems, involving less complex features than those that form most of the material of history, presumably will not hesitate to make systematic studies wherever possible and to explain the relationships where he can. The fact that most historical events may be too complex to permit of definite explanation should not lead to a dogma that no historical events can be interpreted. Unfortunately, however, situations comparable to those mentioned above, in which the fundamentals of man's adaptation to nature are notably changed, are relatively few in history and most of them took place at such an early date that the historian has scanty reliable data from which to study them. Thus, a systematic study of the history of "frontiers"--in the sense of a border of progressive settlement--should consider not only the frontiers in the New World and in Siberia, but also the frontier of German settlement in central Europe in the Middle Ages and the still earlier frontier of Anglo-Saxon settlement in Great Britain. It is obvious that, even were data available, such a problem would be extremely complicated, since it involves not merely different periods of world history but also different areas of the world of radically different character.

In general, the problems which must be handled in systematic studies in history are far too complex, and involve factors too difficult to observe and measure, to permit of the development of generic concepts and principles similar to those developed in systematic geography. There are, to be sure, some students of history--chiefly non-historians--who assume that it is possible to develop scientific laws concerning the rise and fall of states, the causes of revolutions, or the development of particular social movements, but their theses are more notable for the ardor with which they are advanced than for the evidence which has been brought to support them. Most professional historians are sceptical of the possibility of developing a systematic history in which the phenomena important in history may be classified in generic concepts leading to principles. The rather naive belief of some geographers that geography can provide this deficiency in history has not, as yet at least, been substantiated.

This contrast, therefore, between history and geography results from the fact that the interrelations of the phenomena that vary most notably in historic times are far more complex than the interrelations of the phenomena that vary most notably in the earth surface. It does not affect the logically common nature of the two fields, as sciences that attempt to integrate phenomena as they are found in reality.