The AAG Review of Books

ISSN: (Print) 2325-548X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rrob20

American Geography and Geographers: Toward Geographical

Science

Ronald R. Boyce

To cite this article: Ronald R. Boyce (2015) American Geography and Geographers:
Toward Geographical Science, The AAG Review of Books, 3:4, 193-197, DOI:
10.1080/2325548X.2015.1077437

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2325548X.2015.1077437

Published online: 30 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4806

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rrob20

The AAG Review of Books

American Geography
and Geographers:
Toward Geographical Science
Geoffrey J. Martin. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press,
2015. xxix and 1210 pp., maps,
diagrams, illustration notes, bibli
ography, indexes. $195.00 (ISBN
978-0-19-533602-3).

Reviewed by Ronald R. Boyce,

School of Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Seattle Pacific Univer
sity, Seattle, WA.

Geoffrey J. Martin is the preeminent

authority on geography, geographers,
and geographical thought in the
United States. He has been widely ac
claimed for his previous works on the
subject, which are preludes to the book
under review. They include All Possible Worlds: A
History of Geographical Ideas (Martin 2005), The
Life and Thought of Isaiah Bowman (Martin 1980),
Ellsworth Huntington: His Life and Thought (Martin
1973), and Mark Jefferson, Geographer (Martin
1968). Martin has been the official archivist of the
Association of American Geographers (AAG) for
more than thirty years. His books and articles are
models of empirical reportage and accuracy.
American Geography and Geographers: Toward
Geographical Science has been awaited with great
expectations. It has been years in the making and is
the capstone of Martin’s career.
Even a casual overview of its nature and content dem
onstrates that it is a colossal achievement, unlikely
ever to be equaled. On more careful examination, I
believe it will be seen as an instant “classic.” It will
be consulted by future generations of scholars, not
only to gain new insights on the nature of geography,
but also to avoid re peating past mistakes. Among are interwoven in Martin’s tapestry of U.S.
other features, this monu mental volume (1) contains geography: (1) the German influence, (2) the central
a wealth of information and insights that should thread of physical ge ography, and (3) the hot thread
precipitate a myriad of discoveries; of control.
(2) details the arduous journeys of ge
ographers in their quest to define the
nature of geography—journeys fraught
The German Influence
with pratfalls, pitfalls, and disdain for
According to Martin, U.S. geography, at least until the
those with whom they differed; (3)
1970s, was deeply indebted, whether acknowledged
provides an excellent treatment on the
or not, to the foundations laid by German
role of normal schools on the training
geographers. Geogra phy in the United States began
of teachers and the teaching of geogra
at the elementary school level with the first group of
phy at the preuniversity level; (4) de
German immigrants in 1683 arriving on the Concord,
tails the reasons for the current condi
“the German Mayflower” (p. 3). The German
tion of the profession; and (5) provides
influence was paramount after geography was
critical information on where further
established in the colleges and universities beginning
material on geography and geogra
in the 1860s. German geographers were the
phers can be found. He examined 152
authorities that U.S. geographers looked to.
archives in fourteen countries during
his research and writing on this book.
Throughout the nineteenth century Alexander von
Hum boldt was widely acclaimed, especially for his
The book is arranged chronologi
international expeditions. He defined geography as
cally according to topics, but there are
Erdbeschreibung, or
many themes and threads that can be
explored. For example, I identify three threads that

The AAG Review of Books 3(4) 2015, pp. 193–197. doi:

10.1080/2325548X.2015.1077437. ©2015 by Association of American Geographers.
Published by Taylor & Francis, LLC.
description of the earth and the things on it. His col Methods) “and after careful reading concluded that
league Carl Ritter developed a more rigorous Hettner offered a place for political geography” (p.
approach, which he described as Erdkunde. The 892). Hettner’s ideas were central to Hartshorne’s
word suggests not only a description of the earth, but (1939) The Nature of Geography, considered by
a need to study and understand the placement of many to be the most influential book on U.S.
things on it. The key word is kunde. When applied in geography in the twentieth century. Likewise, human
this context, kunde refers to a weighty examination, ecology, developed primarily at the University of
knowledge, and understanding obtained by a serious Chicago, was based on Hettner’s work.
process of investigation. This aspi ration was adopted
later not only in theory, but in prac tice, particularly by Friedrich Ratzel, professor of geography at Leipzig
Alfred Hettner at the University of Heidelberg. Uni versity (1886–1904), also had a major impact on
U.S. geography, but on a quite different path. He
Hettner labeled geography as Länderkunde and Länd defined his geography as Anthropogeographie,
schaftkunde. Thereby, he introduced the ideas of thereby focusing his inquiry on the human, or
landscape interpretation, regional geography, and anthropological aspects (e.g., density, distribution,
the concepts of areal differentiation. His works had a activity) as these were affected by such physical
great impact on the dean of U.S. geographers, features as climate, topography, vegetation, and
William Morris Davis at Har vard. Davis introduced soils; that is, “the study of the land and the effect
Hettner to many others. Brigham reported that Davis upon its people” (p. 392). Even so, Ratzel claimed
“sympathizes fully with Hettner in regarding that “Anthropogeographie can not be translated [into
geography in its regional aspects as embodying a English] literally” (p. 412). Ellen C. Semple, his most
description of the material filling of terrestrial spaces prominent student, was a prolific and colorful writer.
(die dingliche Erfüllung der Erdraüme), but gives She promoted theories that were derisively labeled
more em phasis to the explanatory aspects of environmental deter
systematic geography, in which things of a kind are minism. According to Martin (2005, 365), Semple “fell
studied together” (p. 382). Richard Hartshorne was into an error not uncommon when deductive
also deeply influenced by Hettner (1927), especially reasoning is followed—she failed to look carefully for
his Die Geographie: Ihre Geschichte, irh Wesen, und examples that
ihre Methoden (Geography, Its History, Na ture, and contradicted her principles.” Although severely
criticized from the 1920s on, the determinist critics, the models did not account for arbi trary
perspective regard ing human–environment decisions made by individuals. Third, the economic
relationships continued to have some adherents, geographers were not as fluently trained in German
particularly Ellsworth Huntington (p. 233). as their predecessors. Fourth, most of these persons
lacked the prestigious university appointments so
Ratzel also wrote on other components of geography cherished by traditional U.S. geographers. Finally,
in cluding political and economic (p. 816). At the the pool of German influence was diminished after
University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, J. World War I and World War II. For example, after
Russell Smith and others focused on commercial Hettner’s vociferous com ments about the Treaty of
geography. Later economic geographies discovered Versailles, “The willingness of the Americans to
other German sources and schol ars to guide their please their allies together with their lack of
efforts. Key figures were Johann H. von Thünen knowledge of European affairs and fear for Ger man
(theory of agricultural zonation), Alfred Weber competition in the world, has permitted all of this to
(theory of industrial location), and Walter Christaller come about” (p. 52), and the propaganda writings of
(central place theory). Unlike Hettner’s geography, German geographers such as Karl Haushofer
these works focused on spatial interaction within (Geopolitik) caused a real rift. When Mark Jefferson,
nodal, not uniform, regions. Ullman (1980) an earlier admirer of Hettner, was asked in 1930 to
encapsulated these no mothetic approaches to review Hettner’s work, he rebuffed the idea by
geography by proclaiming that “Site and situation saying that Hettner “no longer interests me” (Martin
concepts and their extension to cover the relation of 1968, 161).
man to environment and to spatial interac tion furnish
in broad fashion perhaps the main basis for
geographical theory” (26). The Central Thread of Physical
Geography
Even so, the core of geography remained rooted in
physi cal geography. Many geographers were Another thread of Martin’s magnum opus is the domi
skeptical of the spatial interactive approach for a nance of physical geography. This was largely
number of reasons (p. 237). First, the Germans who because
were studied, aside from Ratzel, were primarily
economists, not geographers. Also, according to

194 THE AAG REVIEW OF BOOKS

of the importance of William Morris Davis, the father physical geography was so successful that various
of U.S. geography. Davis was a full professor at others disciplines, such as geomorphology and
Harvard from 1885 to 1912, the most prestigious climatology, were spin-offs.
university in the United States at the time. Inasmuch
as he was initially a geologist, he selected the His approach to geography can be found in the work
physical features of the earth from the cornucopia of of many illustrious followers. These included
German thought. In this regard, he was an advocate Ellsworth Hun tington, famous for his study of tree
of geography as Erdkunde as defined by Ritter and rings as these related to changes in climate. Isaiah
Länderkunde as elaborated by Hettner. Bowman pursued physical geography as well as
human geography and served in key positions,
Davis was consumed with the study of landforms, including Director of the American Geograph ical
particu larly the role of rivers in shaping the physical Society and president of Johns Hopkins University.
features of the earth. He was not satisfied with Mark Jefferson, another follower who marched much
simply describing the physical landscape, but tried to to his own music, was one of the most prolific
discover the causal forces that created it. His most scholars of his time. At the Michigan State Normal
lasting contribution in this re gard was the so-called College at Ypsilanti, he trained thousands of school
geographical cycle. The most time consuming legacy teachers in the nature of geography.
on the geographic profession, however, was his
study of physiography from a scientific (hypothe sis) Martin devotes considerable space to the pursuit of
perspective. He argued that a “mature, fully per fect physiographic provinces (regions). It is
developed geography therefore involves the study of amazing how many geographers devoted efforts to
physiography in their mutual relations. Treated their study and a whole chapter is devoted to that
otherwise, the divisions of the subject lose subject. For example, “regional physiography came
coherence; they fall apart, and are gath ered up by fully into its own with the publication of Bowman’s
various other sciences” (p. 136). In short, he wanted ‘Forest Physiography’ (1911)” (p. 210). About a
to establish geography as a science. Ironically, his dozen other geographers provided various
renditions, including Fenneman and especially
Wallace W. Atwood, “The Physiographic Provinces
of the United States (1940)” (p. 227). Erwin Raisz (p.
227) produced a highly original artistic rendering of
the physical features of the United States once
known by every student of ge
ography.
After the Midwest geographers obtained dominance,
physical geography shifted to matters more relevant
to ag ricultural areas in the core of the continent.
These geog raphers focused on farms and fields
rather than mountains and plains. They moved from
a macro to a microscale. Detailed farm and field
studies became standard fare with V. C. Finch and
his famous Montfort studies. Their pri mary method
was careful field mapping with the under lying
assumption that facts put on a map would reveal
underlying causes for the distributions. Their
approach to such regional study was inductive, not
deductive; idio graphic, not nomothetic; site, not
situation. Their regions were uniform (homogeneous)
and not functional (nodal). Interaction between them
was primarily vertical, not horizontal. This caused
those on the periphery to quip that such geographers
were simply “hewers of facts and makers of maps,”
alluding to the Biblical injunction that the Gibeonites
were sentenced to be “hewers of wood and drawers
of water.” The implication was that geographers were
destined to be the servants to other disciplines—not
a science, but merely to provide site descriptors
placed on maps.
The Hot Thread of Control
FALL 2015 195
Nonetheless, the movement was not strong enough
to bring censor and anger from the pillars of the
power elite.
Geography was tightly controlled by Davis’s
followers, particularly in New England. In 1923,
however, a “Mid west takeover” of the AAG occurred.
“This represented a shift of influence away from the
East and the Davisan influence to the Midwest and
the by then intellectually strong department at
Chicago” (p. 1169). Thereafter, the core of
geography became defined by Hartshorne (Uni
versity of Wisconsin) in his weighty work The Nature
of Geography (Hartshorne 1939). Martin wisely
devotes an entire chapter to this work and various
responses to it. Even so, Martin might have a soft
spot favorable to Harts horne. Martin reveals in a
footnote that he “shared more than thirty privately
held meetings with Hartshorne in a little more than
twenty years. Sessions were usually one or two days
in length; the ‘obituary’ session lasted three days.
The sessions were held at the author’s house or at
Throughout the history of geography there has been
a small cadre of keepers of the keys of orthodoxy.
They de fined geography in their images and
deliberately tried to prevent those with contrary
views from gaining positions of power.
Davis, being a geologist initially, defined geography
with physical features at the core. Therefore, when
Ellen C. Semple, following Ratzel rather than Hettner
or Ritter, presented people as the centerpiece of the
discipline, she was attacked by the establishment.
Semple was a prolific and elegant writer and was
highly persuasive and highly popular in the
presentation of her thesis. She followed Ratzel’s
Anthropogeographie, which defined geography as
“the study of the land and the effect upon its people”
(p. 392). Her hypothesis was that the physical
environment was the causal agent, or determining
factor, in shaping the placement and nature of
humankind on the earth, something that she almost
blindly tried to demonstrate. Of course, her theory
was flawed and needful of correc tion, but so were
many of Davis’s hypotheses.
Smith and others at the Wharton School of Business
at the University of Pennsylvania had another view
of geog raphy, with economics playing a paramount
role. Thereby, it also followed a component of
Ratzel’s geography.
Hartshorne’s sister’s house in Killingworth,
Connecticut” (p. 951). Even so, as would be
expected, Martin maintains meticulous objectivity in
his treatment.
There were three major critics of Hartshorne’s opus:
Carl Sauer, Fred K. Schaefer, and those of the newly
emerg ing geography at the University of
Washington. Sauer claimed that Hartshorne had
misrepresented Hettner, a similar charge to that
made later by Schaefer. In a letter to Preston James,
a kind of godfather, or arbiter, to the profession,
Sauer said:
Hartshorne’s vast tome rests largely on Hettner. Yet
what Hettner has added to knowledge himself,
namely, a lot of excellent geomorphology, is
excluded. Hettner’s influence on his students has
been most strongly in their development of the same
approach to culture phe nomena that Hettner made
to the phenomena of land forms, namely, a genetic,
developmental approach. This, Hartshorne also
pushes out to an unimportant fringe of the subject.
 (pp. 919–20) recall what he had written, [to the editor] and was
uncertain that he had written such a letter” (p. 938).
Sauer went even further in a letter to the Director of
the Social Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Schaefer returned to the original sources in German
Foundation when he wrote: by Kant, Humboldt, Hettner, and others. He argued,
for example, that Hartshorne deliberately selected
I must, of course, plead to bias with regard to Harts the id iographic statements of Hettner and ignored his
horne The publication for which he is chiefly known,
nomo thetic statements. In so doing, “the picture
“The Nature of Geography,” is admittedly an assault
on Leighly and myself. At a meeting of the Hartshorne paints of the German author [Hettner] is
geographers, he [Hartshorne] made the since as one-sided as his quotations are selective”
famous quip that it was time for them [mainline (Schaefer 1953, 240). Schae fer’s primary conclusion
geographers] to turn away from the god west of the was that geography, as generally practiced in the
Sierras [Sauer]. (p. 940) United States, and particularly as defined by
Hartshorne, prevented geography from becoming a
Fred K. Schaefer made a more lasting criticism of sci ence. Schaefer concluded that, if U.S. geography
Harts horne’s work. Schaefer, then teaching at the contin ued on the path laid out by Hartshorne, it
University of Iowa, was a German trained in would remain sterile. “I am not so optimistic in case
economics and geography geography should reject the search for laws [which
at the University of Berlin. His impact is evident by he accused Hartshorne of doing], exalt its regional
Richard Morrill’s comments for those at the University aspects for its own sake [la beled exceptionalism by
of Washington: “It was easy to personify Richard Schaefer] and thus limit itself more and more to
Harts horne, whose work we studied in detail, as mere description” (Schaefer 1953, 249).
what we strug gled against. We found
heroes—notably Schaefer and Christaller—and Hartshorne was furious, having not known of its im
many villains” (p. 1119). pending publication, and vociferously attacked
Schaefer. Hartshorne began with a zornhau (a strike
In fact, there might have been somewhat of a conspir of wrath). He pronounced Schaefer’s article “a
acy to prevent the publication of Schaefer’s criticism palpable fraud, consist ing of falsehoods, distortions,
of Hartshorne’s Nature of Geography. Schaefer’s and obvious omissions” (p. 939). He then began a
(1953) ar ticle—“Exceptionalism in Geography: A deliberate series of attaque au fer (a fencing term for
Methodologi cal Examination”—was submitted in a counterattack) of devastating thrusts. Nonetheless,
1952 to the Annals for publication. The editorial Schaefer’s charge of exceptionalism had landed a
committee was Stephen B. Jones (Yale), Edward L. crippling blow. Hartshorne (1959) made a heroic
Ullman (University of Wash ington), and Clyde F. attempt to foil the criticisms of The Nature of
Kohn (University of Iowa). Jones and Ullman, of all Geography by publishing his corrective response in
people, voted against its publication. To the chagrin his Perspective on the Nature of Geography. “After
of many, the editor published it. It shook the publication he would re mark that his ten substantive
establishment to its core. Kohn, being a colleague of chapters were coming to
Schaefer, years later told Martin he “was unable to

196 THE AAG REVIEW OF BOOKS

be regarded as ten commandments” (p. 946). They
were not, especially at the University of Washington. The 2015 annual AAG meetings in Chicago were out
As soon became evident, the profession was no wardly a great success. They were attended by about
longer under law, but under liberty. The damage was 9,000 persons and papers were presented by
done. The center of the field as defined by dozens of specialty groups. No single point of view
Hartshorne could no longer hold. The periphery prevailed; there was no evident ultimate authority. It
prospered. had become almost a heresy to ask the perennial
question: What is geography? Even a casual
Tragically, Schaefer died in 1953 of a heart attack examination of American Geography and Geog
and could not respond to these vicious attacks. His raphers: Toward Geographical Science reveals the
defend ers were legion, however, summarized in need for the question to be raised. Outwardly, the
Reflections on Richard Hartshorne’s The Nature of discipline is flourishing, but primarily by the turmoil of
Geography (Entrikin and Brunn 1989). Schaefer’s an unloosed centrifugal-driven periphery—a kind of
works were donated to the American Geographical Don Quixote period. It is reminiscent of William
Society and ironically, contain an unpublished article Butler Yeats’s (1920) The Second Coming: “Turning
entitled “The Nature of Geog raphy.” and turning in the widen ing gyre, the falcon cannot
hear the falconer; things fall apart: the centre can not
hold” (p. 466).
How did geography reach this stage? And what is the
center? Are things falling apart or is freedom for
innova tion and the unleashing of liberty ringing a
triumphant rebirth of the discipline? It is certainly no
longer to be found in the long-standing region-based
syncretism
(exceptionalism) as presented by Nevin M.
Fenneman’s “The Circumference of Geography” (pp.
511–12). And has geography arrived as a science?
Wisely, Martin does not venture into the murky mire
of modern interpreta
tion but ends abruptly circa 1970. He lays out the
facts and points the reader to treasure troves of
archived ma terial. Even so, the sleuths for the truth
will find all the clues they need in this summa cum
laude achievement, to make sense of the otherwise
confusing state of U.S. geography today.
References
Entrikin, J. N., and S. Brunn, eds. 1989. Reflections
on Richard Hartshorne’s The nature of geography.
Washing ton, DC: Association of American
Geographers.
FALL 2015 197
Hartshorne, R. 1939. The nature of geography: A
critical survey of current thought in light of the
past. Lancaster, PA: Association of American
Geographers.
———. 1959. Perspective on the nature of
geography. Chi cago, IL: Rand McNally.
Hettner, A. 1927. Die Geographie—ihre Geschicte,
ihr We sen, und ihre Methoden [Geography. Its
history, its na ture, its methods]. Breslau,
Germany: Ferdinand Hirt.
Martin, G. J. 1968. Mark Jefferson: Geographer.
Ypsilanti, MI: Eastern Michigan University Press.
———. 1973. Ellsworth Huntington: His life and
thought. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.
———. 1980. The life and thought of Isaiah
Bowman. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.
———. 2005. All possible worlds: A history of
geographical ideas. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press. Schaefer, F. K. 1953. Exceptionalism in
geography: A methodological examination. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 43 (3):
226–49.
Ullman, E. L. 1980. Geography as spatial interaction.
Se attle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Yeats, W. B. 1920. The second coming. The Dial,
Novem ber, 466.