Defining the geography disciplines: what’s the difference?

I’ve been pondering just what exactly is the difference between the disciplines of geography? This idea came to me a couple of weeks ago, when I attended a talk about ecological complexity. The subject of the talk really gave me no insight into the differences; rather I focused on the discipline which dominated the talk. Human geographers tended to have the most insight into the debate, and thus had the most to say. (As a side note, some might say, humorously, that human geographers always seem to have a lot to say. But I think this isn’t a valid argument, as human geographers tend to work on qualitative research; in essence, words. So of course they have a lot to say!) The talk itself was designed to foster debate among the three disciplines in geography: physical, people-environment, and human. One observation that I made in this talk was that I had trouble understanding the concepts, and more importantly, the vernacular used by the human geographers.

I think UW geography is unique – good and bad – for a couple of important reasons. First, we are not overrepresented by one particular discipline; rather; all three are pretty much equal. From what I can tell, this seems to be the exception rather than the rule in geography departments. This equality does foster interactions between the disciplines. However, due to the high degree of specialization in the disciplines, there is often little or no contact between grad students. For example, my roommate is a hard core human geographer, while I’m a hard core physical geographer. When he talks about his classes and research, I leave the conversation slightly baffled, since I can’t understand what he is actually studying. I’m sure he feels the same way when I start up with the phytoliths. I think I could understand the stuff he is talking about, but I’ve never taken the time to actually study this stuff. Hence, I really have no frame of reference upon which to understand his concepts. I think this is especially true when it comes to the jargon of a particular discipline. I understand the general meanings of the words. For example, I know what “space” is, but in the context of human geography, it seems like such an abstract concept. Some other examples: place, and identity. Here are some vocab words that have been explained to me, but I still have no idea what they mean: performitivity, and post-modernism. Now, don’t get me wrong: I have no issue with human geography. I’ve simply have very little exposure to it. Similarly, when I start spouting about morphotypes and Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles, most people’s eyes tend to glaze over.


Secondly, the physical geography discipline here at UW seems to be more closely allied with geology departments. Many geology departments, such as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tend to do Quaternary research. So where’s the line? What sets us apart from geology? This is a gray area, and there really is no clear line. I’d like to think that we here in the geography tend to focus on the big picture, and to place a priority on spatial location (i.e. we put maps in our studies). But I don’t think this argument would hold up. Yes, we do focus on regions: I study the Columbia Basin and the Great Plains. And we don’t really work on specific topics, like the morphology of Festuca idahoensis. But, UN-Lincoln studies the Great Plains as well. In fact, one of the physical geography faculty here, Joe Mason, formerly taught at UN-Lincoln geology. I think this pseudo-allegiance to geology tends to alienate us physical geographers even more. We have even less in common with our human and people-environment colleagues.

Should we advocate more “mixing” of the disciplines? This is where I become conflicted. Mixing could lead to research shifts, and to a more “compromise” research theme in the department. In essence, it could lead to a hybrid of human and physical: i.e. people-environment. So, this raises the question, can physical and human geography ever really mix? Wouldn’t mixing, by its very nature, invalidate the two disciplines’ traditional research goals? After all, human geographers = humans minus nature, while physical geographers = nature minus humans.

On the other hand, some topics considered de facto physical geography could be considered technically human – or at the very least people-environment. I can think of several examples: 1) cartography/GIS; 2) global warming; 3) fluvial flood control (see Rising Tide, by John Barry); and 4) the response of oceans to various anthropogenic forcings.

What then, is the difference between human and physical geography? Is it that we each have core areas of study? Economics vs. mountains, societies vs. sediments. Or is the definition of these disciplines nebulous and open to interpretation, such as the “is Pluto a planet” debate?