Key Debates and Developments in Geography
By
Dr. Avijit Mahala
Geography as idiographic & Nomothetic
The idea of nomothetic and idiographic approaches has their roots in the work of Immanuel
Kant, who argued that knowledge comes from the application of universal laws to specific
cases. the nomothetic approach is a method used to look for generalizations across groups
of people. This approach contrasts with the idiographic approach, which focuses on
individual cases. The term "nomothetic" comes from the Greek word "nomos", meaning
law, and the root "thetes", meaning to place or establish. So, the nomothetic approach can
be thought of as the law-placing approach, or the approach that looks for general laws.
nomothetic approach can be said to focus on the similarities between large numbers of
people, rather than the differences. Additionally, they tend to highly value the use of
scientific methods, experiments, quantifiable data, statistical analyses, and the use of group
averages to make deductions and predictions about general human behavior.
Nineteenth century German philosopher Wilhelm Windelband, a neo Kantian, introduced
these terms and defined their distinctions. To describe two distinct approaches to
knowledge, each one corresponding to a different intellectual tendency and each one
corresponding to a different branch of academe. Windelband used nomothetic to describe
an approach to producing knowledge that seeks to make large-scale generalizations. With a
nomothetic approach, one conducts careful and systemic observation and experimentation
to derive results that can be applied more broadly outside the realm of study. This approach
is common in the natural sciences and is considered by many to be the true paradigm and
goal of the scientific approach. On the other hand, an idiographic approach is one that is
specifically focused on a particular case, place, or phenomenon. This approach is designed to
derive meanings particular to the research target, and it is not necessarily designed for
extrapolating generalizations. Nomothetic is based on what Kant described as a tendency to
generalize and is typical for the natural sciences. It describes the effort to derive laws that
explain objective phenomena in general. Idiographic is based on what Kant described as a
tendency to specify and is typical for the humanities. It describes the effort to understand
the meaning of contingent, unique and often subjective phenomena.
Idiographic and nomothetic methods represent two different approaches to understanding
social life. An idiographic method focuses on individual cases or events. Ethnographers, for
example, observe the minute details of everyday life to construct an overall portrait of a
specific group of people or community. A nomothetic method, on the other hand, seeks to
produce general statements that account for larger social patterns, which form the context of
single events, individual behaviours, and experience. Social scientists who practice
nomothetic research are likely to work with large survey data sets or other forms of
statistical data and to conduct quantitative statistical analysis as their method of study. The
nomothetic approach involves trying to make generalizations about the world and
understand large-scale social patterns. The Idiographic approach involves trying to uncover a
great deal of detailed information about a narrower subject of study. Social scientists can
combine both idiographic and nomothetic approaches to develop a more comprehensive
understanding of Society.
Geography as Systematic and Particular/Regional
Within Geography, the distinction between a concern with the individual and the general is not new. It was reflected in
Ptolemy’s separation of geography from chorography and in the 17th century in Varenius’ distinction between general
geography and special geography. From the 19th century, though, it found direct expression in the distinction between
regional and systematic geography (Unwin 1992).
❑ Regional Trend in Geography:
The first half of the 20th century saw an increasing number of geographers across the world drawn towards regional
geography. The regional study reached its culmination in the views of Hartshorne and Alfred Hettner when they
expounded on the concept of geography as chorology and areal differentiation. The views and works of few geographers
who gave primacy to regional approach in the study of geography have been discussed here.
Alfred Hettner (1859 - 1941) was the first professor after Carl Ritter who was trained as a geographer. Hettner defined geography
as chorology- a scientific explanation of the total causal relationships of an assemblage of phenomena that are mutually
coordinated, but not subordinated in places (Holt-Jensen, 2009) . He discussed in detail the significance of regional geography.
Hettner studied physical geography and his research is on climate and geomorphology. The phrase ‘Areal Differentiation’ was
introduced by Sauer in 1925 in paraphrasing Hettner’s statement of his concept of geography.
In France Vidal de la Blache is known as the founder of modern geography. His method was inductive and was strongly against
the artificial division of natural and cultural phenomena which he regarded as inseparable. He used the term ‘pays’ which
meant an aerial unit where the relationship of man with his surroundings or physical landscape is so close that they assume a
unique identity where both are fused and become one. He was of the view that study of such regions should be the primary
focus of geography. He thus argued for regional geography to be the core of geography.
Vidal de la Blache had a profound impact on the emergence of regional geography in Britain. Patrick Geddes was influenced
by French sociologist Frederic Le Play (1806-82) and adopted his popular formula of Place Work and family as Place Work and
Folk in the study of regions. Geddes had a major impact in the development of British geography particularly in the field of
regional survey and regionalisation.
British geographer A. J. Herbertson inherited the legacy of Sir Patrick Geddes. He worked with Geddes as his assistant. He gave
a scheme for division of world into different regions which he called ‘natural regions’ as they were based on the association of
surface features, climate and vegetation (Holt and Jensen, 2009). He divided the world into 15 major natural regions, later he
incorporated human being and their activity into his regions.
M.I. Newbigin was popular as a regional geographer in Britain, her book entitled ‘Man and his Conquest of Nature’ (1912)
shows the impact of tradition set off by Vidal de la Blache of Germany. The book explores the relationship between man and
his environment.
H Fleure initiated a very new basis of classification and identification of region. The basis was the problems and difficulties
posed by physical environment. He proposed seven types of regions: regions of hunger; regions of debilitation; regions of
increment; regions of effort; regions of difficulty; regions of wandering and industrialised regions (Fleure, 1917).
In America a group of American geographers were drawn to the regional approach in geography therefore a lot of study on
regional geography is found in the 1930’s. There were geographers like W. L. G. Joerg, W. Powell and N. M. Fennemen who
belonged to the regional school. However, the publication of Richard Hartshorne’s monograph “The Nature of Geography: A
Critical Survey of Current Thought in the Light of the past” (1939) was a landmark in the direction of establishment of
regional paradigm in geography.
❖Systematic Trend in Geography:
Humboldt figures amongst the earliest systematic geographers. He was an eminent scholar in geography in the eighteenth and
nineteenth century who studied geography and travelled extensively. His works follow the methodology of natural sciences and
are systematic in nature. Humboldt advocated empirical method of study. He emphasised the need for observation in the field
and careful and accurate record of the observation. He was the master of several disciplines and a keen observer. His
observations of plants lead him to produce his well-known work ‘flora Fribergenis’. In his quest for the subject matter of
geography he used the term ‘cosmography’ which he divided into uranography and geography. Uranography was descriptive
astronomy which dealt with the celestial bodies while geography dealt with the terrestrial part. He was a firm believer in
‘unified universal science’ that encompassed physical, biological and social sciences. He believed in the unity of nature and
visualised nature as an organic whole. His works were systematic in nature and largely on physical features, vegetation and
climate. He always believed in causal interrelationship that is inherent in the nature.
Oscar Peschel emerged as a proponent of systematic geography in Germany. He gave contemporary geography a new
perspective and dimension which differed from the heritage established by his predecessors. He advocated an inductive and
empirical method of investigation. He was appointed as a professor of geography in Leipzig in 1871. He produced a great work
in the year 1865 entitled “Geschichte der Erdkunde’. He carried out a detailed systematic study on fjords and published a book
on it.
Ratzel (1844 – 1904) with his background in natural sciences emerged as a prominent systematic human geographer. At the
time when man was studied as a component part in regional geography his initiative to use the method of natural science to
study human geography should be regarded as a break with the established convention. As a result he was widely recognised
as a systematic geographer.
In America the publication of Schaefer’s paper ‘Exceptionalism in Geography’ (1953) stirred a debate regarding the
methodology and purpose of geography. It was the impact of this paper which produced a shift in the method of geographical
research pursued in American universities.
The Iowa school: Schaefer belonged to this school but the leader here was Harold McCarty who with his associate made notable
contribution to methodological changes in systematic studies. McCarty and his associates wanted to establish the degree of
correspondence between two or more geographical patterns.
The Washington School: W. L. Garrison, his associates and later E. L. Ullman emerged as the pioneers of systematic tradition in
the university of Washington , Seattle. This centre saw the publication of largest volume of work which conformed to the
methodology propagated by Schaefer and McCarty. Bunge (1966) was of the view that the works of Garrison show the influence
of Schaefer’s paper.
J. Q. Stewart and his social physics school: J. Q. Stewart was an astronomer at Princeton university, he noted that there was
some regularity in the distribution of various aspects of population and explored the cause behind the distribution.
W. Bunge’s (associate of Garrison) work ‘Theoretical Geography’ gave geography a scientific footing. He favoured formulation
of laws and theories in geography and countered many arguments of believers in regional approach. He stated that laws can
easily be formulated in geography. B.J L.Berry and M .F . Dacey too made invaluable contribution to the field of systematic study
in geography.
❖Schefer Vs Heartshone Debate
In the mid twentieth century the issue of geography as a regional or systematic study snowballed into a debate between two
scholars F K Schaefer and Richard Hartshorne. This is regarded as a major debate regarding the subject matter and
methodology of geography.
It began with the publication of the paper ‘Exceptionalism in Geography’ by F.K. Schaefer in 1953 which questioned the
unique status claimed by geography on account of study of unique regions. He argued in favour of adoption of philosophy
and methodology of natural science. He further stated that all sciences study unique phenomena/events and strive to
formulate theories and general laws (Dikshit, 1997). In order to gain the status of science, geography should give up its
adherence to the claim of uniqueness and move towards formulation of laws and general principles.
In his view geography is the science of spatial arrangements and therefore there is difference between the nature of laws
developed in geography and the laws developed in other sciences. The views expressed by Schaefer was in response to the
concepts popularised by Hartshorne in his earlier works.
According to Hartshorne geography is concerned with study of areal differentiation. He supported chorological view of
Hettner and stated that geography studies the world with the aim to describe and interpret various differences that exists
among its different parts. It is a discipline that seeks to integrate different phenomena that occurs over space. It studies not
just assemblage of different phenomena but their association that provides unique identity to that spatial unit. He thus
emphasised geography as regional study forms the essence of discipline. After the publication of Schaefer’s paper Hartshorne
through numerous publications offered rebuttal to the arguments put forward by Schaefer. In his 1959 monograph entitled
‘Perspectives on the Nature of Geography’ he reaffirmed his earlier stand with slight modification on the subject and stated
that ‘geography is a discipline that seeks to describe and interpret the variable character from place to place of the earth as
the world of man’. (Hartshorne 1959).
On the question raised by Schaefer regarding formulation of laws Hartshorne asserted that in geography formulation of law is
not its end purpose (Hartshorne, 1959 pg 168). He further stated that we may once again modify our statement of the
purpose of geography to read: the study that seeks to provide scientific description of the earth as the world of man
(Hartshorne 1959 pg 172).
Remarks
A look into the history of development of the discipline brings to light that there was lack of a clear cut direction to which it can
progress. There were various issues which confused the geographers from time to time like what should constitute its subject
matter? What methodology is adopted? And how the man-nature relationship be conceptualized? There was no one generally
accepted solution to all these issues. These issues delayed the establishment of geography as a true science which resulted in
the delay of opening new departments in universities (Unwin, 1992)
Geographer studies individual phenomena and observes its distribution over space. He may find some pattern and can
formulate law or give hypotheses. He also observes and studies the same phenomena in association with other phenomena
which together characterises a region. The first study is systematic geography while the latter is regional study.
Rather than appearing opposed to each other they stand in symbiotic relationship and complement each other. Such a nature
of relationship was observed both by Varenius and Hartshorne. In the words of Hartshorne (1939) “The ultimate purpose of
geography, the study of areal differentiation of the world is most clearly expressed in regional geography; only by constantly
maintaining its relation to regional geography can systematic geography hold to the purpose of geography and not disappear
into other sciences. On the other hand regional geography in itself is sterile, without the continuous fertilisation of generic
concepts and principles from systematic geography it could not advance to higher degrees of accuracy and certainty in
interpretation of its findings”. This observation leaves little doubt that the attempt to divide it into two different parts is
useless as both the studies are indispensable for the discipline. Together they enrich it and expand its domain. Hartshorne
viewed both the systematic and regional geography as essential parts of the discipline and not against each other. Unwin
(1992) noted that ‘paradoxically The Nature of Geography has subsequently been interpreted as the standard bearer of
regional geography and the unique’.
Geography as General and Regional
➢ The issue of general geography versus regional geography was most probably raised by Bernhard Varen, known as Varenius,
in the 17th century. ably raised by Bernhard Varen, known as Varenius, in the 17th century. This period is often termed as
the classical period of the modern geographic thought. Varenius recognized the two main divisions of geography-general or
universal and special or particular. This branching of the subject is known a$ general geography versus particular (special)
geography. Systematic geography deals with one or a few aspects of the human environment or the human population and
study their varying performance in the world or over a pre defined geographical space. General geography, as viewed by
Varenius, wa$ concerned with the formulation of general laws, principles and generic concepts. It was believed to be the
noblest of ends of scientific enquiry in the initial development of geography.
➢ spelt out the difference between systematic and regional geography. Humboldt divided the subject matter of geography
into uranography and geography. Uranography, according to him, is the descriptive astronomy) while geography deals with
the interrelationship of phenomena that exist together in an area. He believed in inductive method and emphasized the
importance of empirical method of research. In his introductory chapter to Kosmos, while categorically stressing the value
of generalization in science
➢ Carl Ritter- a contemporary of Humboldt- was a teleologist.4 He stressed the need for a study of natural phenomena ‘as a
whole, as in parts’ in order to comprehend the ‘inherent plan’. Although he was convinced that there were laws, he was in
no hurry to establish theme. He conceived geography as an empirical science rather than one based on deduction from
rational principles or a priori theory. He emphasized the fact that there is a coherence in the special arrangement of
terrestrial phenomena. Areal phenomena are so interrelated as to give rise to the uniqueness of the areas as individual
units. In brief, according to Ritter, geography was concerned with objects on the earth as they exist together in an area. He
studied areas synthetically, i.e. in their totality. He believed in the centrality of regional geography. He felt that geography
must rise above a mere description of a multitude of facts about a particular phenomenon. The goal of geography should
be, according to Ritter, ‘ . to get away from mere description to the law of the thing described; to reach not a mere
enumeration of facts and figures, but the connection of place with place and the laws which bind together local and general
phenomena of the earth’s surface’.
➢ After Carl Ritter, Ferdinand von Richthofen defined geography. In his opinion, the purpose of geography was to focus
attention on the diverse phenomena that occur in interrelationship on the surface of the earth. The methodology he
suggested for the study of geography was that the elements of physical setting of a region be discussed and then the
adjustment of man in that setting be examined.8 For a substantial period, it remained the basic pattern of geographical
studies not only in Germany but also in other parts of the world. Richthofen also emphasized the point that regional
geography must be descriptive to highlight the salient features of a region. Moreover, it should try to seek regularities of
occurrence and patterns of such unique features to formulate hypotheses and to explain the observed characteristics.
General geography, he felt, deals with the spatial distribution of individual phenomenon in the world.
➢ After Ratzel, Alfted Hettner-a leading German scholar- claimed that geography is an idiographic (regional) rather than
monothetic (general) science .’In his opinion, the distinctive subject of geography was knowledge of the earth areas as these
differ from each other. He considered man as an integral part of nature of an area. His approach was, however, deductive
giving more importance to elements of physical environment.
➢ The inductive method and empirical research got revived in France. Vidal de la Blache discarded the Ratzelian deductive
approach and extensively employed specific studies (pays)for drawing conclusions of a general nature. In actual practice his
efforts led to the development of regional geography, which made the understanding of particular and unique attributes
the most cherished goal of geographical enquiry.
➢ Another French geographer Reclus, while giving a precise picture of world societies, asserted that man is not the product of
his environment but an important component of it. ‘Man may modify his dwelling places to suit his own purpose; he may
overcome nature
➢ Richard Hartshorne stressed on areal differentiation (regional geography). In the post-Second World War period, geography
was essentially ideographic (regional) and was articulated through the art of geographical description, a commitment to
fieldwork, and the integration of physical geography and human geography within the study of particular landscape.
➢ The post-Second World War period is characterized by quantitative revolution in the subject. It has developed new
conceptual frameworks leading to the emergence of a location theory which seeks for new order in the distribution of
phenomena in space in their interlinkages. The foregoing description gives a historical background of the dichotomies of
systematic or general versus special or regional geography. The approaches adopted by the scholars of systematic and
regional geography are described hereunder.
➢ To illustrate this point, Figure 9.1 has been plotted. In this figure, the rows show the approach of study of systematic
geography, and columns show the approach of study of regional geography, i.e. if we study the types of soils in various
continents, it is an example of systematic geography, while if we take a particular continent or a region of it and
superimpose all the physical and socio-economic variables, it would highlight the peculiarities of that region. This
synthetic picture, revealing the special features of the region, is a case of regional geography.
➢ Figure 9.1 further reveals various branches of the subject. As these branches of general geography are also combined into
regional geography, it can be seen that these are the two main aspects of the subject.12 The figure clearly shows how the
combinations of phenomena and parts of the earth’s surface can give regional or general geography.
Remarks
➢ The dichotomy of systematic versus regional geography seems to be quite logical. In the opinion of some scholars there may
east several geography «hcr than one. In fact, geography has been defined by different geography differently. These
definitions range from landscapes, places, space, location man-nature interaction, man-earth system, human ecology and
areal differentiation of interrelated phenomena on the earth surface to man.
❖ Thus, geography is multidimensional not only in the number of topics and regions of the world which can be included in one
study but also in the approach of study. Geography is multivariate not only in its combination of natural sciences, social
sciences, and mathematics but also in the ways different geographers may combine these elements.13 Owing to this
multivariate nature of the discipline, even regional geographers now recoil from describing all the phenomena at one place
which they discover arc interconnected. At a time when regional description is in backwater, it may be necessary to conceive
general geography, compare regional gcography, and full descriptive regional geography as three quite separate branches.
Compa gegeograph)’ will not include phenomena which are simply characteristic of a place unless they show some logical
arrangement in space and connections with other important phenomena. The term compage was introduced to geography
by Derwent Whittlesey (1890-1956) in an attempt to give greater precision to several aspects of regional geography. The
central idea of compage is that all the features of the physical, biotic and societal environments are functional!', associated
with the human occupancy of the earth. Yet, thinking of geography’s wider function and obligation to educate laymen, as
distinct from professional geographers, full, orderly regional description may still Iv required outside the profession.
❑ More stress on regional geography is also not correct, because no two places, no two groups of people are exactly alike in any
place at any point c! time. In the words of Berry15, ‘the regional and general geography are not different approaches, but are
just the two extremes of a continuum' , which he likens to a three dimensional matrix- the earth, social and geometrical
Geographical studies do not fall into systematic (topical) and regional groups but are distributed along a gradual continuum
from topical studies of the niosi elementary integration at one end of regional studies to the most complete integration at the
other.
❑ All material objects and phenomena which exist in the real svorld and haw been observed by us have two entities- individual
or the particular and the general or the universal. They have particular characteristics which are peculiai to them and make
them unique; they also have some general features which arc common to other objects of the same type and are, therefore,
universal i '1 nature. It is their individuality which makes them different from other objects ese individual objects also have
certain recurrent features in common whid' them to a group of objects with which they have general relations.
✓ Thus, the dichotomy of systematic and regional therefore falls, as they do not oppose but support each other in the final
analysis, as the subject matter of geography.
Quantitative Revolution in Geography
impact of Darwin’s theory in Geography
