Radicalism/Critical

Revolution in
Geography

User
RIYAD HUSSEIN
 JIMMA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES

(GIS and RS, MSc program)

ASSIGNMENT FOR THE COURSE THOUGHTS AND

PHILOSOPHY IN GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

TITLE: Radicalism/Critical Revolution in Geography

By Riyad Hussein

Submitted to: Tesfaye Debela (MS.c)

JANUARY 2023

JIMMA, ETHIOPIA
Table of contents

Table of contents......................................................................................................2
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1
1.1 General objective............................................................................................2
1.1.1 Specific objectives....................................................................................2
1.1.2 Statement of the problem..........................................................................2
1.2 Significance of the study.................................................................................3
1.3 Delimitation/ Scope of the study.....................................................................3
1.4 Organization of the study................................................................................3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................3
2.1 Radicalism..........................................................................................................3
2.1.1. Inequality, capitalism, and marginalization.............................................4
2.1.2. Activism and social change......................................................................6
Importance of Radicalism in Geography.................................................................7
2.1.3 The origin of the radical geography..........................................................9
2.2 Marx and the spirit Marx...............................................................................10
3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION..................................................12
Reference................................................................................................................13
1 INTRODUCTION
Radical geography is an approach to geographic research that seeks to understand social and
spatial problems, and to advocate solutions. Radical geography is not a coherent or unifying
concept or methodology. There is great diversity in the research that would be considered
“radical.” Radical geography is an approach developed in the 1970s and a contemporary ethos
that is fundamental to many geographers’ work. It should be considered as a multiple, dynamic,
and contested approach, for which there is no one definition. Instead there are radical
geographies. Radical geographers are interested in everyday lives: the lived experiences of
members of society. They are interested in issues of relevance to everyday social life, such as
access to safe and affordable food and housing, fair pay, educational opportunities, and basic
health care, to name just a few. This emphasis reflects a desire for geographers to do research
that is relevant to, and useful for, society. There has been a specific focus on understanding
spatialities of power, inequality, and oppression, which has required an understanding of the
causes of such inequality and has led to research on power relations, neoliberalism, political
structures, and corporate hegemony. It has been necessary to understand how neoliberalism and
corporate power operate in order to relate the everyday experiences of people to the broader
structures that shape their lives.
There is an implicit left-wing progressive political agenda to much radical geography work,
which prioritizes the oppressed, powerless, or marginalized in society. Such work often aims to
transform the world through an emancipatory politics. The political agenda of this work has
often been to advocate for a fairer and more equal society where everyone’s basic needs are met
and everyone has an equal opportunity to participate and thrive. Once the causes of social
problems have been identified, radical geographers take a normative approach. This means that
they seek to offer solutions, alternatives, and possibilities for how the problem can be solved. A
quest for social justice permeates much of radical geography. Radical geographers, who are often
active participants in social justice campaigns, are also committed to building, supporting, and
intellectualizing alternatives. In other words, radical geography is as much about offering
alternatives as it is about understanding causes. Contemporary examples include Jane Wills’s
work in supporting the campaign for a living wage in London and beyond, Gibson-Graham’s
work on diverse economies, and Marc Purcell’s work on direct democracy.

1
Radical geography emerged in the late 1960s both in response to a changing social context and
as a critique of the positivism of the earlier quantitative revolution in geography. The social
context was a growing unease about social and economic inequality, poverty, racism, crime,
sexism, and environmental issues, typified in dissent against the Vietnam War and support for
antiracist and anticolonial movements. At the time, the quantitative approaches and positivist
epistemology of the 1950s and 1960s began to be considered as irrelevant to these social
problems and as being inadequate in offering solutions or alternatives. Geographers wanted not
only to identify social problems, but also to understand their cause and thus identify different
possibilities. It was increasingly understood that merely identifying problems was not enough,
and that geographers needed to be proactive in advocating change and to do so on the basis of
clear ethical and political foundations.

1.1 General objective

 To discuss Radical/ Critical Revolution in Human Geography

1.1.1 Specific objectives

 To identify different philosophical approach on the time of critical revolution

 To illustrate role and philosophical stance of the critical revolution

 To describe the strength and shortcoming of the radicalism approach or critical revolution
 To demonstrate the critics behind Marxism and Leninism approach

1.1.2 Statement of the problem

The followers of radical approach in geography mainly concentrated on the issues of great social
relevance like, inequality, racism, sexism, crime, delinquency, discrimination against blacks and
non-whites, females, exploitation of juveniles and environment resources and the opposition of
the Vietnam war in U.S.A. Events of the late 1960s, such as the burning of large cities in the
western world, student-unrest, worker-uprising in Paris in 1968, massive anti-Vietnam war
protest actions and radical cultural reformation exposed the social and political irrelevance of
geography as a spatial science and proved the hollowness of locational analysis.

2
Marx focused much of his attention on understanding capitalism rather than developing schemes
for socialist and communist societies, and would have found little to praise in those autocratic
and repressive regimes. Marxism overlooks alternative ideas that might shape behavior.

1.2 Significance of the study

Human geography analyzes patterns of human social interaction, their interactions with the
environment and their spatial interdependences by application of qualitative and quantitative
methods. In this term paper, I have tried to explain this attractive realm with its philosophical
nature. Radicalism in geography is detained and explained well.

1.3 Delimitation/ Scope of the study

The focus of this paper was the Radicalism approach to human geographical researches. Human
geography uses qualitative and quantitative methods. Not only methods different approaches of
study like positivism, humanism, behaviorism and realism,
These approaches have its own characteristics and can change the result of some one’s studies.
Assumptions and selections were made as a consideration of a proper and realistic way.

1.4 Organization of the study

The paper organized under three chapters. Chapter one included background of the study,
statement of the problem, objectives of the study, significance of the study, and scope of the
study.
Chapter two is all about literature review. Chapter three will present the conclusions, and
recommendations.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Radicalism

The radical approach in geography developed in 1970s as a reaction to ‘quantitative revolution’

and positivism which tried to make geography as a spatial science, with great emphasis on
locational analysis.

3
It began as a critique within the contemporary liberal capitalistic society but later coalesced
around a belief in the power of Marxian analysis. According to radicalists, inequality is inherent
in the capitalist mode of production. Redistribution of income through taxation policies will not
solve the problems of poverty, according to Peet, alternative, environment designs, with
removal of central bureaucracies and their replacement by anarchistic models of community
control are needed, and geographers should work towards their creation.
The followers of radical approach in geography mainly concentrated on the issues of great social
relevance like, inequality, racism, sexism, crime, delinquency, discrimination against blacks and
non-whites, females, exploitation of juveniles and environment resources and the opposition of
the Vietnam war in U.S.A. Events of the late 1960s, such as the burning of large cities in the
western world, student-unrest, worker-uprising in Paris in 1968, massive anti- Vietnam war
protest actions and radical cultural reformation exposed the social and political irrelevance of
geography as a spatial science and proved the hollowness of locational analysis.
It was in this background that the radicalized students and junior faculty members challenged
the traditional geography (geography as spatial science) and they started publishing articles with
more ‘socially relevant’ geographic topics in the professional journals. In 1969, Antipode—a
Radical Journal of Geography was founded at the Clark University in Worcester
(Massachusetts), specifically to publish the research papers of the younger geographers with a
revolutionary leaning.
The young radical geographers published papersin Antipode dealing with urban poverty,
discrimination against women, coloured people and minority groups, unequal access to social
amenities, crimes, deprivation, permissiveness and sexism. They also published articles on
underdevelopment, poverty, malnutrition, and unemployment and resource misuse in the Third
World countries. Thus, the radicalists took the side of the oppressed, advocating their causes
and pressing for fundamental social change. In brief, the radical geography was a quest for
social relevance of the discipline geography at a time of contradiction and crises in the
capitalistic society of the west.
2.1.1. Inequality, capitalism, and marginalization
Radical geography is grounded in a basic concern for everyday lives and in identifying and
making visible the geographical processes that shape and produce inequality, oppression, and
marginalization. There are many radical geographers, but here three examples have been picked
4
out to illustrate some of their intellectual and normative contributions to the founding dimension
of the field – research on inequality. This work has tended to highlight the inequity of
neoliberalism and its unjust consequences, and thus that capitalism is the structural cause of
inequality. The late Neil Smith’s work is exemplary of (Marxist) radical geographers’
engagement with issues of inequality, particularly in cities. His early work, Uneven
Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space (1984), argued that capitalism
produced uneven spatial development. He went on to critically identify gentrification as a
process of capitalism that benefited from low urban land prices and capitalist speculation in The
New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City (1996). Smith developed the term
“rent gap,” a concept used by ant gentrification activists to help explain and fight against
gentrifying processes. Indeed, much of his work was used politically and by activists, and Smith
worked with many activists over his lifetime, especially the Harlem Tenants Association. He was
always concerned with the importance of class to these processes of inequality. Later in his
career he drew inspiration from the anti-globalization protests of the late 1990s and the
revolutionary potential of the Occupy movement and the so-called Arab Spring. Smith became
increasingly critical of the topical focus of contemporary geography, particularly the middle-
class obsessions of Anglophone geography, such as the concern with the community gardens in
New York, rather than recognition of how social processes produced such a geographically
uneven world (Smith 2005). The late Doreen Massey (1984), another Marxist geographer, was
also interested in uneven development and developed the theory of “spatial divisions of labor.”
This approach posited that uneven development was a result of the different ways in which the
capitalist economy engaged with space and spatial relationships. Therefore, there is a functional
division between how regions or countries are used within particular industries, with some
regions benefiting from hosting the development activities of an industry (like research and
strategic management) and other regions providing the actual production. As these activities are
differently remunerated, such division reinforces social inequalities. Massey argued that
companies deliberately developed this spatial division of labor to benefit from the lower labor
costs of the actual production in periphery regions. The outcomes were social inequalities that
varied across space, creating a divide between rich and poor regions, between genders, and
between classes. For Massey, understanding space was crucial to understanding inequality and
poverty, and once this was grasped, it was then possible to identify solutions. The final example

5
is the work of Jane Wills, an expert on work and labor politics, who in 2005 worked with the
campaign, group London Citizens to develop the case for the living wage. Wills argued that,
although Britain has a basic minimum wage, many people are in in-work poverty: despite being
in full-time employment, they do not have enough money to cover their basic living costs (Wills
and Linneker 2014). Wills worked with community organizers to build a business case for a
living wage, starting with the example of cleaners at Queen Mary University of London. Their
aim was to reverse the trend for global outsourcing, which saw a reduction in the wages and
benefits of staff but increasing profits for companies. This social justice work was expanded to a
UK-wide campaign in 2011 through the Living Wage Foundation. Wills’s achievements not only
illustrate the possibilities of change as a result of radical work, but also the importance of
academics working with community organizers in a collaborative bottom-up process.
2.1.2. Activism and social change
Radical geographers’ links with political activists have extended beyond concerns with class and
inequality into diverse geographical research of resistance and social change. Many radical
scholars work with those who are campaigning, protesting, and instigating social change across
a broad range of interests, including poverty, health, food, migration, environment, land rights,
gender equality, queer activism, racism, and other social justice issues. There are several
dimensions and approaches to this work. Some scholars, like Paul Routledge, Kye Askins,
Jenna Lloyd, Kelvin Mason, and Paul Chatterton (to name just a few), have sought to bring
geographical concepts to the aid of activists, and to directly participate in activist struggles. For
example, Paul Routledge (2003) has worked extensively with activist communities in India and
Bangladesh (among other places) on environmental issues and anti-capitalist resistances,
developing the concept of “spaces of convergence” to understand the global processes of anti-
globalization protest. His work has sought to illustrate how localized grassroots activism
connects into global networks to shift power relations and trigger social change. Jenna Lloyd
(2014) has explored health activism, the quest for health care as a basic social right, and in other
work critiqued the criminalization and militarization of migration. As part of the Autonomous
Geographies Collective, Paul Chatterton worked alongside Jenny Pickerill and Stuart
Hodkinson to explore autonomous activists’ daily lives. This work involved active participation
in British anti-capitalist activism to understand and advocate for those spaces where there is a
questioning of laws/social norms, and a desire to create non-/alter-capitalist, collective forms of

6
politics, identity, and citizenship. The collective’s work was able to identify the value of these
contested, fractured, interstitial spaces of autonomy. In many ways this work built on the
anarchist foundations of radical geography by exploring practices of mutual aid, solidarity, self-
management, decentralized and voluntary organizing, and direct action. Crucially it validated
the everyday practices of activists as being as valuable for social change, empowerment, and
resisting capitalism as the temporary moments of visible political public protest. Chatterton
went on to found and research the first affordable urban ecological cohousing community in
Britain. This type of research often involves difficult issues around ethics: protecting research
participants, illegal activities, and power relations (between resourced privileged academics and
under resourced marginalized activists) (Autonomous Geographies Collective 2010). There
remains a tension in much of geographers’ work between supporting and advocating diverse
forms of activism and the intellectual need to critique and interrogate activist practices. There
are numerous problems inherent in all forms of activism, most commonly around gender
relations, the often limited scalar impact of protest, measures of “success” (the global capitalist
economy often prevails), the temporality of activism, the ghettoization of activist communities,
and the time required for alternatives to be created; however, intellectual critique can be viewed
as undermining the intentions of collective action and as politically unhelpful. Many radical
geographers negotiate such tension by only offering constructive critique and limiting their
intellectualization to academic journal publications. This constructive critique is increasingly
shared in nonacademic formats. Radical geographers have long been conscious of the limited
utility and readability of an academic journal article beyond academia. Instead, radical
geographers have sought to share their ideas with nonacademic in different ways, such as
through comic books, exhibitions, photography, short pamphlets and zines, blogs and social
media, posters and art. For example, Sarah Marie Hall created an exhibition, along with artist
Stef Bradley, to document and share the everyday impact of austerity in Britain. This included
artifacts from the families she worked with, cartoon sketches, and photographs and was
explicitly designed to appeal and be understandable to nonacademic audiences.
Importance of Radicalism in Geography
The radical approach in geography developed in 1970s as a reaction to ‘quantitative revolution’
and positivism which tried to make geography as a spatial science, with great emphasis on
locational analysis.

7
• It began as a critique within the contemporary liberal capitalistic society but later
coalesced around a belief in the power of Marxian analysis. According to radicalists,
inequality is inherent in the capitalist mode of production. Redistribution of income
through taxation policies will not solve the problems of poverty, according to Peet,
alternative, environment designs, with removal of central bureaucracies and their
replacement by anarchistic models of community control are needed, and geographers
should work towards their creation.
• The followers of radical approach in geography mainly concentrated on the issues of
great social relevance like, inequality, racism, sexism, crime, delinquency, discrimination
against blacks and non-whites, females, exploitation of juveniles and environment
resources and the opposition of the Vietnam war in U.S.A. Events of the late 1960s, such
as the burning of large cities in the western world, student-unrest, worker-uprising in
Paris in 1968, massive anti-Vietnam war protest actions and radical cultural reformation
exposed the social and political irrelevance of geography as a spatial science and proved
the hollowness of locational analysis.
• It was in this background that the radicalized students and junior faculty members
challenged the traditional geography (geography as spatial science) and they started
publishing articles with more ‘socially relevant’ geographic topics in the professional
journals. In 1969, Antipode—a Radical Journal of Geography was founded at the Clark
University in Worcester (Massachusetts), specifically to publish the research papers of
the younger geographers with a revolutionary leaning.

• The young radical geographers published papersin Antipode dealing with urban poverty,
discrimination against women, coloured people and minority groups, unequal access to
social amenities, crimes, deprivation, permissiveness and sexism. They also published
articles on underdevelopment, poverty, malnutrition, and unemployment and resource
misuse in the Third World countries. Thus, the radicalists took the side of the oppressed,
advocating their causes and pressing for fundamental social change. In brief, the radical
geography was a quest for social relevance of the discipline geography at a time of
contradiction and crises in the capitalistic society of the west.

8
2.1.3 The origin of the radical geography
The origin of the radical geography Movement can be traced to the in late 1960s, especially in
the U.S.A. with three contemporary political issues:

1. The Vietnam war,

2. Civil rights (especially of the American blacks), and

3. The pervasive poverty and inequality suffered by the residents of urban ghettos and deprived
rural areas all of which were generating increased social unrest and tension.

In the words of Poet (1977), radical geography developed largely as a negative reaction to the
established discipline (spatial science). The radical geographers introduced the study of topics
such as poverty, hunger, health, and crime to human geographers, who had previously very
largely ignored them.

9
The salient features and objectives of radical geography were:

1. To expose the issues of inequality, deprivation, discrimination, health, exploitation, crime

and environmental degradation in the capitalist countries.

2. To highlight the weaknesses of the positivism and quantitative revolution in geography

which emphasized on geography as a ‘spatial science’ with a thrust on locational analysis.

3. To bring a cultural revolution to eradicate permissiveness, sexism and discrimination against

females.

4. To remove regional inequalities.

5. Radicalists opposed political centralization and economic concentration. Contrary to

multinationals, they favored small- scale self-sufficient social units, living in greater
harmony with their natural surroundings.

6. They were against imperialism, nationalism, national chauvinism and racism.

7. They opposed the idea of the superiority of the white and the west.

10
8. According to radicalists the man and environment relationship may be understood through
history. In other words, the mode of production in any society determines the economic
relation among its people.

9. One of the objectives of the radicalists was to explain not only what is happening but also to
prescribe revolutionary changes and solution to the social problems.

10. To develop a more just, equal, tension free, peaceful and enjoyable society.

2.2 Marx and the spirit Marx

Marxist thought was relatively late in terms of its influence within geography, compared to other
social sciences and humanities disciplines. Marxism is an extraordinarily rich tradition, with
numerous offshoots, variants, and adherents (Matthews and Herbert, 2008). It offers both
commentary and substantive thought on economics, development, urbanization, agriculture and
industry, politics and governance, international relations, social classes and divisions, science,
literature, painting, film, history, the environment, ethics, and more. Marxist geography has both
introduced the arguments of Marxism, particularly political economy, into geographical analysis,
but also provided the introduction of a spatial element in Marxism. In the first, there is an
emphasis on questions of value, rent, and appropriation (Clark et al., 2003). The second is
potentially more challenging, since it attempts to redress the imbalance of historical materialism,
with an emphasis on temporal chance, with a historical and geographical materialism, which
takes space as a crucial determining context to all social interaction and struggle. The
deployment of Marx’s ideas in geography has an interesting history. At one level, interest in
Marxism has declined markedly in popularity since 1990. At that time, the most influential and
widely cited geographers, following
David Harvey drew heavily on his ideas. Since, Harvey’s scholarship has undergone steady
criticism, and many of the most influential geographers now position themselves as post-Marxist.
At another level, however, the apparent decline of Marxism marginalizes the fact that a number
of its most important insights have been internalized within human geography (Henderson and
Sheppard, 2006). One reason advanced for the death of Marxism is historical: First, the Marxism
practiced had little in common with the ideas of Marx. Marx focused much of his attention on
understanding capitalism rather than developing schemes for socialist and communist societies,
and would have found little to praise in those autocratic and repressive regimes. Second, global
11
political and economic developments since 1990 have resulted in a world that looks more like the
capitalism that Marx envisioned than at any time since he wrote. Now live in a world dominated
by neoliberal capitalist ideologies and practices, with non-capitalist economic practices at a
historically low. While there are many similarities between the rapidly globalizing dominated
and free-trade-oriented world economy studied by Marx and today’s US dominated neoliberal
globalization, the prevalence of capitalist practices and discourses is far greater. David Harvey’s
Social Justice and the City, in 1973, was a crucial mediating text in introducing Marxist ideas
into geography, but it was arguably his The Limits to Capital, in 1982, which had a more
profound impact (Castree and Gregory, 2008). This study looks to fill the ‘black boxes’ of
Marxist thought from a geographical perspective. It is interested in what the world is like and
who makes it that way; in what knowledge and feelings people have about their situations and
how those perceptions arise from those very situations. It is at root an inquiry into human
endeavors of all sorts, with the aim of bringing about more just.

3 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Radical geography is an approach to geographic research that seeks to understand social and
spatial problems, and advocate solutions. Radical geographers are interested in everyday lives:
the lived experiences of members of society. They are interested in issues of relevance to
everyday social life, such as access to safe and affordable food and housing, fair pay,
educational opportunities, and basic health care, to name just a few. This emphasis reflects a
desire for geographers to do research that is relevant to, and useful for, society. A quest for
social justice permeates much of radical geography. Radical geographers, who are often active
participants in social justice campaigns, are also committed to building, supporting, and
intellectualizing alternatives. In the past decade there has been a resurgence of interest in radical
methodologies. Recently, radical geographers have advocated wider use of participatory
methods. Participatory research methods start by asking groups outside the academy what
research they think is required, how it should be conducted, and what outcomes they would like
to see. Academics then work with these participants to help them conduct the research. It is a
bottom-up approach to research and is based on the premise that research should benefit all,
particularly those who have participated in it. This approach attempts to stretch the normative

12
element of radical geography to thinking about who shapes and benefits from geographers’
work.

Reference
AHAMER, G. 2013. Multiple cultures of doing geography facilitate global studies. Multicultural
Education & Technology Journal.
AITKEN, S. & VALENTINE, G. 2006. Ways of knowing and ways of doing geographic research.
Approaches to human geography, 1-12.
BOOTH, K. 1995. Human wrongs and international relations. International Affairs (Royal Institute of
International Affairs 1944-), 71, 103-126.
CARTER, P. L. 2009. Geography, race, and quantification. The Professional Geographer, 61, 465-480.
CASTREE, N. & GREGORY, D. 2008. David Harvey: a critical reader, John Wiley & Sons.
CHALMERS, A. F. 2013. What is this thing called science?, Hackett Publishing.
CLARK, G. L., FELDMAN, M. P., GERTLER, M. S. & WILLIAMS, K. 2003. The Oxford handbook of
economic geography, Oxford University Press.
COUCLELIS, H. & GOLLEDGE, R. 1983. Analytic research, positivism, and behavioral geography.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73, 331-339.
DAY, C., KINGTON, A., STOBART, G. & SAMMONS, P. 2006. The personal and professional selves of
teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British educational research journal, 32, 601-616.
DIXON, D. P. & JONES III, J. P. 2006. Feminist geographies of difference, relation, and construction.

13
GERGEN, K. J. 2009. Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction, Harvard university
press.
GREGORY, D. 1986. Structuration theory. The Dictionary of human geography. RJ Johnston, D. Gregory
and DM Smith. Oxford, Blackwell Reference.
HENDERSON, G. & SHEPPARD, E. 2006. Marx and the Spirit of Marx. Approaches to human
geography, 57-74.
HILL, M. R. 1981. Positivism: a'hidden'philosophy in geography.
HUBBARD, P., BARTLEY, B., FULLER, D. & KITCHIN, R. 2002. Thinking geographically:
Space, theory and contemporary human geography, A&C Black.
HUBBARD, P. & KITCHIN, R. 2010. Key thinkers on space and place, Sage. HUGHES, C. 2002.
Key concepts in feminist theory and research, Sage.
HUSSEY, B. 2010. Realism, disciplinary history and European Union studies.
JOHNSTON, R. J. 1986. Philosophy and human geography: an introduction to contemporary
approaches.
KITCHIN, R. 2006. Positivistic geography and spatial science. Approaches to human geography, 20-29.
KRUGMAN, P. 1998. What's new about the new economic geography? Oxford review of economic policy,
14, 7-17.
MATTHEWS, J. A. & HERBERT, D. T. 2008. Geography: A very short introduction, OUP Oxford.
MULKAY, M. J. 1975. Three models of scientific development. The sociological review, 23, 509526.
PEET, R. 1998. Modern geographic thought.
PHILIPSE, H. 2021. Heidegger's philosophy of being: A critical interpretation, Princeton University
Press.
PRAWAT, R. S. & FLODEN, R. E. 1994. Philosophical perspectives on constructivist views of learning.
Educational Psychologist, 29, 37-48.
SAPKOTA, K. 2017. Humanistic Geography: How it blends with human geography through methodology.
Geographical Journal of Nepal, 10, 121-140.
SAYER, A. 2006. Realism as a basis for knowing the world. Approaches to Human Geography:
Philosophies, Theories, People and Practices, 106-116.
SCHARFF, R. C. 2002. Comte after positivism, Cambridge University Press.
SEAMON, D. 2014. Lived Emplacementand the Locality of Being: A Return to Humanistic Geography.
Approaches to human geography. Philosophies, theories, people and practices, 2, 35-48.
SMITH, S. J. 1981. Humanistic method in contemporary social geography. Area, 293-298.
SPINNEY, J. 2009. Cycling the city: Movement, meaning and method. Geography Compass, 3, 817-835.

14
STAEHELI, L. A. & MARTIN, P. M. 2000. Spaces for feminism in geography. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 571, 135-150.
THUMBADOO, R. V. 2018. Ginawaydaganuc and the Circle of All Nations. The Remarkable
Environmental Legacy of Elder William Commanda. Carleton University.
TUAN, Y. F. 1976. Humanistic geography. Annals of the Association of American geographers, 66, 266-
276.
UNWIN, P. 1992. The place of geography: Harlow Longman Scientific & Technical. Essex, Inglaterra:
Longman Scientific & Technical.
WRIGHT, D. J., GOODCHILD, M. F. & PROCTOR, J. D. 1997. Demystifying the persistent ambiguity of
GIS as ‘tool’versus ‘science’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87, 346-362.

15