Pu Yi, last Emperor of China, is pardoned | History TodayThe history of science and the history of the scientific disciplines
UNIVERSIDAD DE BARCELONA
Dep&sito Legal: B. 9.348-1976
A&o XIV.&& N&mero: 84
Diciembre de 1989
THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND THE HISTORY OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES.
GOALS AND BRANCHING OF A RESEARCH PROGRAM IN THE HISTORY OF GEOGRAPHY (*)
In the development of the history of science, the histories of the
individual scientific disciplines have played an enormously significant
role. The goals and functions of these have recently received considerable
attention, both because of the influence that such histories have had on
the legitimacy and self-image of the disciplines and also because of the
adaptability that they have shown when faced with the conceptual and methodological
changes that they have undergone. With regard to these disciplines, there
are, moreover, alternative approaches whose advantages and disadvantages
are also the subject of debate: from within the discipline itself or from
a more general starting point external to th from
motives that lead into history our the problems of today, and out of an
interest for the past unrelated to present-day concerns.
Certain old sciences, such as geography, constitute areas of special
interest in this respect, since on the one hand there are diverse generations
of disciplinary histories, connected with the most important theoretical
issues and the contentious relations and on the other
hand profound changes have recently taken place which have led to far-reaching
transformations in historiography.
Within the frame of reference of the present simposium, it might be
of interest to present some of these developments and, in particular, to
offer a general overview of the origins and goals of the research program
in the history of geography which, in what is today the Department of Human
Geography of the University of Barcelona, has been in progress for almost
two decades. The goals and the evolution of this project have led to a
growing integration of our research with that which is being undertaken
by other historians of science, while at the same time providing a stimulus
for, and a new perspective on, the work on current issues in human geography
which is being carried out in the Department.
The histories of the disciplines and their functions
The history of science is full of great works that have marked a turning
point in the development of a branch of knowledge, and in which the proposals
for a new theoretical frame of reference or a new systematization of the
known facts were preceded by an extensive historical introduction consisting
in the evolution of the topic up to that moment. From the 18th Century
on, with the growing specialization in science that gave rise to new disciplines,
and with the acceleration of the changes in theories and scientific method,
the number of works of this kind has grown considerably. Particularly in
the 19th Century, there were many scientists who were conscious of the
profoundly innovative character of their work, and who did not hesitate
to draw self-justifying historical pictures which promoted appreciation
of the significance of their own contributions. Cuvier, Humboldt, Ritter,
Lyell, Darwin, Comte, and many others who made decisive contributions,
were not only aware of being genuine creators and the force behind new
scientific developments, they also took active part in contemporary controversies
and felt the need, to a greater or lesser extent, to convince the general
public of the innovative character of their work. This led them to write,
or rewrite, the history of the discipline, to reveal the obstacles that
had been put in the way of the development of that science, whose final
manifestation was now assured - and to point out those forerunners who
had prepared the way.
The case of Lyell is particularly significant. In the long historical
introduction to his Principles of Geology (1830) (1) , Lyell created the
myths which allowed him to set himself in a privileged position in the
Pantheon of Geology. He did this both by claiming to be the true creator
of the basic principles of that science, and also by pointing out the barriers
which had hitherto impeded its development: religion, philosophical speculation,
and the anthropomorphic world view (2) . In spite of these obstacles, the
way towards a positive and uniformitarian geology had in fact been discovered
gradually, but in talking about this Lyell hands out praise, blame (and
silence) in a way that exaggerates the originality of his own contribution.
His introduction presents the history of geology as an oversimplified dichotomy
between biblical catastrophism and uniformitarianism with its classical
roots. Moreover, and not surprisingly given the epoch, he offers a selective,
partial vision of the past, decontextualising it from its social and intellectual
climate. His conception of history and geology are different: "while Lyell's
history of the earth is uniformitarian, his history of geology is catastrophist:
a succession of Gargantuan figures, great for their contributions or baneful
influence, paraded before the reader without law or cause" (3) . It is
a catastrophist history in which Lyell's final contribution achieves its
true significance as an authentic, definitive revolution.
The example of Lyell, like that of other great authors, lays bare the
distortions and errors that can be found in the history of science when
one accepts the ideas of one justifications of scientist concerning the
evolution of the subject. Biassed ideas that distort the true evolution
and which undoubtedly serve as excuses and self-justifications: their own
work and their personal efforts, just as of the science which is their
field -in this case geology- presented as a branch of knowledge which finally
achieves a truly scientific stature after a prehistory of approximations
and errors.
An appreciation of the distortions that are found in the historical
conceptions of great scientists, and of the personal and corporate factors
that can affect these, allows us also to question the validity of the way
that the members of a scientific community collectively present their discipline.
We might well suspect that, as in the case of the histories of individuals,
these histories of communities will have, due to conscious or unconscious
bias, distortions and slants, whose precise content and purpose we would
do well to reveal.
In recent years a great deal of attention has been paid to the histories
of disciplines within the field of the history of science. What has undoubtedly
contributed to this is the incorporation and diffusion of relativist focuses
in the study of the disciplines. The traditional view considered the sciences
as predetermined archetypes, which the progressive unfolding of reason
alone allowed us to see in their true form by stripping them of the mixing
and confusion with other branches of knowledge which existed in the pre-scientific
phase. In contrast, we recognize that the character of the scientific disciplines
is determined by, and contingent on, they take shape in changing
social and intellectual contexts, and have boundaries that are not predetermined
at all but depend both on the conditions of their constitution and also
on the developing relationship with other disciplines that are also contingent
on history.
The same histories of the disciplines play an important role in the
constant structuring and restructuring of the areas of knowledge, offering
scientists an image of themselves, of the community to which they belong,
and of the purpose of their work. The history of the discipline provides
us with a means of making and spreading the myths and the ideologies that
give cohesion to the scientific community: who their forerunners and outstanding
figures are, the dignity of their science as genuine, the goals and social
relevance of their work, the relations of cooperation and conflict with
other disciplines and subdisciplines.
If every discipline has its own history, at times in contradiction with
its neighbors or overlapping with them, it is also true that within one
single discipline the history is not always the same. The theoretical changes
that take place, in particular the revolutionary changes, i.e. those that
lead to the diffusion and imposition of what Kuhn would call a new paradigm,
force the continual rewriting of history, both so as to justify and support
of the change and also to prevent and defend the status quo, but in any
case, to refer to the past in order to legitimize present-day views.
There are, therefore, histories of the disciplines aimed at different
audiences: some at those outside the community, which normally means at
other scientific communities that are in competition. In these cases, one
attempts to justify the identity, the validity and, on occasions, the scientific
nature of the discipline, all of which is essential to achieve recognition
within an academic structure competing for limited resources. More frequently,
histories are aimed within the discipline itself, either to socialize the
neophytes, by indoctrinating them, through the historical presentation
of the past, in the principles and metho or else to
defend the viewpoints of scientists in discussions with colleagues or in
disagreements over the theory and methods of the discipline (4) .
Through the history of the discipline one can observe the position that
a scientist adopts in controversies and in the changes that affect his
science, both in what he cites and the judgments he makes concerning events
and people in the past, and also in what he omits or glosses over, and,
obviously, in the material he chooses to include. The topic of parents
or forerunners is of great interest: they are the ones who open the way
towards the present, anticipating or preparing
their prestige, they also lend validity, in the initial stages, to the
proposals which later win through.
It is thus that the history of a discipline serves, as an author has
written in reference to the development of psychology in Germany: "to institute
a scientific tradition, to line up the ancestors in order to give prestige
to the field and to fall into line with the established sciences, or to
conceive oneself within a stream on scientific progress" (5) .
What is clear from all of this is the enormous interest to be found
in the study of the different histories of disciplines within the same
scientific, and the comparison between those that have been carried out
in separate but related disciplines, those which sometimes draw on a common
past and which have goals of study that are very close or even overlap.
In a similar way, there is a great interest to establish if there are histories,
produced either from within or outside, where the preoccupation with justification
and legitimacy is absent.
The histories of geography
From the Renaissance onwards, the geographical works of antiquity have
served both as a scientific model and also as a corpus of data which could
be used for modern purposes. Estrab&n or Pomponio Mela furnished
chorographic models that were followed and esteemed time and again from
the 16th to the 18 moreover, the information which these authors
-as well as other authors of antiquity and of the Middle Ages- provided,
and also itineraires and accounts of journeys, were also useful, after
due criticism and authentification, in constructing the map and developing
the description of the earth's surface, more particularly to the benefit
of historical geography. All of this generated great interest in the old
texts, in the careful editing of them -which involved the collaboration
of geographers, historians and philologists- and in the study of them,
as in the case of other sciences. In spite of the advances made since the
Renaissance, a grasp of historical knowledge continued, until the 18th
century, to be an extremely important prop in the development of modern
geography. We have dealt elsewhere with the usefulness of the ancient sources
and of the works of the 16th and 17th centuries in the solution of geographical
problems of the 18th, and there is no need to reiterate this. We need only
remind ourselves here of the interest of a D'Anville, a Homann or a Tom&s
Lopez in the information of ancient geographers for the construction of
their maps, or how closely Buache, Torrubia and others studied the voyages
of discovery in the 16th and 17th centuries in order to attempt a solution
of the geographical enigmas related to continents that were still little
known (6) .
If all this is granted, it is, however, also true that from the 16th
century onwards, with the great discoveries, there arose an increasing
awareness of the insufficiencies and the limits of the works of the classical
geographers. These works began to be supplemented and superseded by new
observations from all parts of the planet. There is thus a parallel growing
process of obsolescence of the ancient texts, and their role changed so
that they were invoked as classical models to be imitated, both because
of the diversity of the integrated data and the systematization as precedents
that lend value and prestige to science.
In the introductions to geographical works, in discussing the value
and dignity of the science, the forerunners and ancient authors were carefully
given a distinguished position, which meant that one often finds, in the
histories of geography, celebrities like Moses or Homer, thus lending to
the science the most illustrious ancestors.
It could be argued, therefore, that in a way the history of geography
appeared with the purposes of providing dignity and legitimacy. It is an
attitude which, if we look further back, we find in those same classical
geographers. This may be seen, for example, in Estrab&n's Geography,
where in Book 1, after claiming that it is a "proper (study), no less than
any other, for a philosopher", he accepts Hipparchus' thesis that its founder
was Homer, and he delves into the history of geography in order to show
"those who followed him were also illustrious", all of them philosophers
(i.e. scientists), viz.: Anaximander, Hecataeus, Democritus, Eratosthenes,
Hipparchus, Polibius and Posidinius, among many other names.
In general, up to the 19th century, the history of geography stood both
as a history of the advances in our knowledge of the earth, that is to
say as a history of geographical studies and explorations, and also as
a history of maps (7) . While it was, just like other histories at that
time, above all a history of progresses - a "historical picture of the
progress of geography", in the words of Malte-Brun (8) - from the second
half of the 18th century, due to the impact of Buffon's description of
the earth, it could become an epocus of geography.
The history of geography was also related to historical geography, that
is to the reconstruction of the geographies of the past, particularly -from
a European viewpoint- the Greek, Roman and Jewish past. As a history of
journeys, there was also in connection with the discovery of possible prior
claims which would assure the juridical legitimacy of political possession
of those territories.
At the same time, in a geography that was essentially a description
of countries and regions, the history of the journeys and discoveries could
continue to play its part, as is shown in the use to which it was put by
two great figures at the beginning of the 19th century, Humboldt and Ritter.
Thus, with reference to the so-called "comparative method", which he took
over from anatomy and applied widely in writing his Erdkunde, Hanno Beck,
a great specialist in his field, could write: "what Ritter understands
by the comparative method is, in the first place, no more than the compilation
of historical sources, ordered chronologically, above all the accounts
of journeys" (9). It is thus not surprising that these accounts, which
reflected the widening geographical horizon, continued to form the essential
part of the histories of geography down to the beginnings of the 20
histories which some authors now considered part of the history of science,
and particularly useful in the study of the discipline because, as Vivien
de Saint Martin wrote: "simply by following science as it passes through
its successive stages one can see the place it occupies in the general
development of humanity" (10) .
In the second half of the 19th century, coinciding with the spectacular
growth of the scientific community of geographers, the history of geography
turned its attention to new topics. The resonance of the Historical Essay
conceming the Progressive Development of the Idea of the Universe, which
was published in Alexander de Humboldt's Cosmos () (11) , and
the development of physical geography, brought to these histories the evolution
of ideas about the physical structure of the world and about the interrelationship
between different natural phenomena. At the same time as developing a growing
interest in human concerns -which was to lead to the creation of a systematic
human geography- attention was also directed towards the history of the
techniques and procedures used to establish the wealth and population of
countries (censuses, tax-lists, etc) (12) .
At the same time, the development of a new regional geography in the
second half of the 19th century implied the search for antecedents in order
to delimit the chorographic units. In this respect, certain 18th century
geographical contributions, such as those of Buache or the geographers
of the Reine Geographie, could now be highlighted. Meanwhile, the issues
of the theoretical foundations of the discipline in relation to other scientific
fields led to a study of figures in the past, such as Varenius, who had
reflected on the contents and methods of this science.
During the last decades of the 19th century, the academic institutionalization
of geography was made by affirming the notion of a break with the past.
The "new geography" that appeared in the 1880's reduced everything prior
to Humboldt and Ritter to being considered as a pre-scientific stage that
was now superseded, and converted it into simply an object of attention
in the search for antecedents of current ideas. At the same time, the history
of cartography and the history of discoveries -which, as we have seen,
were traditional ingredients of the history of geography - acquired an
independent development and, although they continued to be the subject
of attention for certain geographers, began to be increasingly studied
by specialists: the former mostly by cartographers and historians of science
(13) ; the latter by the historians of society and of techniques (l4) .
From the end of the 19th century, every important theoretical change
in the science of geography, and every debate concerning its foundations
and methods, has been accompanied by incursions into the history of the
discipline with a view to using arguments from the past to support one
or other of the contesting conceptions. Important theorical works, like
those of Alfred Hettner (15) or Richard Hartshorne (16) , also contain
a historical dimension which seeks to illuminate current thinking "in the
light of the past".
Our discipline had a difficult struggle towards the end of the 19th
century in order to achieve recognition moreover,
because of its situation at the crossroads between the natural sciences
and the social sciences, it has not only had serious problems with its
foundations, it has also had numerous critics and competitors. This underlies
its felt need for a justification of the discipline and the affirmation
of its dignity and independence from the other natural and social sciences.
Introductions to university handbooks as well as longer and shorter compendia
have approached this task, and frequently there has also been a debate
concerning its relations with the sciences that are "adjacent" or "auxiliary"
to geography (l7) . In general, as in other disciplines, one has attempted
to show the route that has led to modern, truly scientific geography.
However, as one might expect in a subject with both ancient roots, a
powerful institutional development, and also a long tradition of historical
studies, the histories of geography that have been written throughout the
present century are richer and more varied. While it is true that a large
number are written out of concern for current issues, there has also been,
in past epochs, an important school of histories of geography that were
directly linked to the history of science and the history of culture: specific
research as well as general works on the geography of the ancient world
(18) , of the Middle Ages (19) , of modern times (20) , and of 19th and
20th centuries (21) . Interest in the biographies and the individual contributions
of the most illustrious geographers (22) has more recently given way to
the ambitious attempt to produce a complete biographical inventory of every
geographer who has contributed to the science (23) , and to a concern to
collect the testimony of those still alive concerning their training and
their ways of working (24) .
Emphasis on the origins and evolution of geographical ideas, as well
as on their intellectual and social context, appear again -and with increasing
intensity - in certain works that have responded to the call that J K Wright
made in 1926, and they continue, more or less explicitly, the line laid
down in the works of Lovejoy (25) .
Anthologies of geographical texts have put at the disposal of students
selected fragments from the most important geographers (26) , in some cases
alongside evidence of the geographical knowledge of other historical authors
(poets, philosophers, theologians, travelers, etc.) (27) .
The changes that have taken place since 1950 have caused a fissure in
the unity, which the discipline had maintained since the beginning of the
century, based on the acceptance by the whole scientific community of the
regional paradigm and the historicist approach. These changes led to new
generations of historical works, some of which have sought to recount the
vicissitudes and the protagonists of the transformations that have taken
place (28) . All of this meant, first, greater atte
second, a search for appropriate antecedents for each
and finally, a greater attention to geography's relations with the general
evolution of the natural and social sciences, as well as with the general
evolution of ideas and of philosophical frames of reference (29) . It has
also reinforced the tendency towards a shortened chronology of the history
of the subject, one that restricts itself to contemporary geography, that
is to say developments subsequent to the contributions of Humboldt and
Ritter, who are solemnly considered by all sides as the fathers of present-day
geography.
The attempts that have recently been made to present in a global form
the discipline's historical development since antiquity faithfully reflect,
as always happens, the authors' standpoint vis-a-vis the changes that have
been taking place. By way of an example, we only need to cite the case
of Preston James's work published in 1972. The different chronology of
the changes in different countries becomes evident if we compare this work
with that of the German Hanno Beck published the following year (30) .
While in the latter the quantitative revolution is totally absent, in the
work of James -some 20 years older than the German- we see reflected both
his acceptance of the regional paradigm and also his sensitivity to the
changes that had been taking place in the discipline in its Anglo-American
context (31) . James insists that geography deals with the differences
in the earth's surface (geodiversity) and investigates "what things are
combined in different places to produce the complex characteristics of
the world's landscape"; this shows that James is set in the same line as
Hartshorne, that is to say in the conception of a geography of regions
and landscapes. However, at the same time, the allusions to the mental
images, to the importance of relative location, and the statement that
"scientists have formulated many different kinds of explanations to make
the mental images plausible and acceptable, and their explanations, in
turn, often determined what features they choose to observe", all of which
demonstrates that the work was written after the debates of the 1 950's
and 1 960's.
One sentence in particular reflects his awareness of, and his reservations
about, quantitative geography: according to him, scientists "sought and
found mathematical regularities separate from the processes of change,
that nevertheless satisfied the urge to explain the images of geodiversity".
In this "nevertheless" we see unconsciously reflected his disqualification
of those mathematical discoveries which, faced with the urgency to find
provisional solutions, provide only momentary satisfaction. In other words,
we see in him all the dissatisfaction of a traditional - though sensitive
and open geographer with one of the fundamental aspects of the quantitative
revolution. Thence arises an excellent history, conceived in a particular
place and time (USA, 1970), with a wide perspective, and with great attention
to the most recent developments (in the 1 960's), though at the same time
without renouncing his own viewpoints.
With all this evolution, the history of geography is today an extraordinarily
rich and diverse field, with a long tradition of research carried out within
the discipline. Ever since the first International Geographical Congress
in Amberes in 1871, practically all meetings have devoted attention to
these topics, usually in specific sections dedicated to "The History of
Geography and Historical Geography". More recently (since 1968), within
the International Geographical Union a commission devoted to "The History
of Geographical Thought" this has stimulated new research,
and there have been discussions on reports of the most varied types: journeys,
the history of ideas, philosophical frames of reference, biographies of
scientists, history of the language and methods of geography, institutions,
etc (32) . As one might expect, in all these works there is a mixture:
of those who approach history from concerns that arise in current scientific
or professional practice, and those whose interest
those who use traditional historical techniques, and those in search of
new ways, using philological, bibliometric or ico
those who aim to set their research in the most general area of the history
of science, alongside those who still see their research as serving to
legitimize and dignify the discipline.
The History of Geography in Spain
There has been a similar evolution in Spain. Studies in the history
of geography in this country have a long tradition to which we can refer
only briefly here. It has undoubtedly been a field of interest to geographers,
but also to social historians, naval historians, and historians of science.
These studies, together with those of historical geography, have also had
great significance in the general development of the subject, since they
were, for a long time, predominant among the different geographical studies.
Owing to the intimate association which existed, as we have mentioned,
between the history of geography and the history of discoveries, it has
been sailors interested in naval history who have produced some of the
most important contributions.
We find an example of this in the work of the erudite author of the
Enlightement Martin Fern&ndez de Navarrete, whose Disertaci&n
sobre la Historia de la Na&tica y de las Ciencias Matem&ticas
que han contribuido a sus progresos entre los espa&oles, published
by the Royal Historical Academy in 1846, is surely the most outstanding
contribution of the whole of the 19th century. The founding during the
Restoration -specifically in 1876- of the Geographical Society of Madrid
(subsequently the Royal Geographical Society) (33) allowed the gathering
of a large number of geographers interested in all aspects of the discipline
including, among the foremost, the history of geography. The historical
topics that were developed by this nucleus of geographers, and by certain
historians and naturalists connected to them, were mostly very much in
line with the traditional focus which associates the history of geography
with the history of geographical discoveries (Table 1). Although there
were some works on antiquity and the Middle Ages (concerning journeys,
or medieval geographical descriptions), the majority of the contributions
were studies of the changes in our knowledge of the earth from the 16th
century onwards. Special attention was paid to navigation and to the Spanish
cosmographs, as well as Spanish enterprises such as the Geographical Reports,
ordered by King Philip ll, or of Spanish enterprises in America. Obituaries
and commemorative tributes formed another important line of work, to which
should be added the historical accounts of certain geographical institutions,
from the Casa de Contrataci&n in Seville, to the Geographical and
Statistical Institute, and the Geographical Society itself. Finally, the
zeal to keep abreast of the geographical advances of the times and to report
one's participation at international congresses gave rise to a last line
which are today valuable contributions to the history of geography, although
at the time, of course, they did not have this purpose. At all events,
this is the reason why in current bibliographies on this topic (34) we
notice a heavy concentration on the 1 9th and the beginning of the 20th
centuries (Table 1).
Spanish studies in the history of geography .
Period -- Gen. Studies - Antiquity -Middle Ages -16th/17th
C. -18th C.- 19th C. -20th C. -Concept/Method -Total&
1880-89 ------ 1 ----------------- 0 ---------------
2 ------------- 0 ------------ 1 -------- 1 -------- 0 ----------------
0 -------------- 5&
1890-99 ------ 0 ----------------- 0 --------------- 0
------------- 0 ------------ 0 -------- 8 -------- 0 ---------------- 0
-------------- 8&
1900-09 ------ 0 ----------------- 1 --------------- 3
------------- 5 ------------ 2 -------- 5 -------- 2 ---------------- 2
------------- 20&
1910-19 ------ 2 ----------------- 0 --------------- 0
------------- 4 ------------ 0 -------- 3 -------- 0 ---------------- 4
------------- 13&
1920-29 ------ 2 ----------------- 2 --------------- 2
------------- 3 ------------ 2 -------- 5 -------- 2 ---------------- 2
------------- 17&
1930-39 ------ 0 ----------------- 1 --------------- 1
------------- 1 ------------ 4 -------- 2 -------- 2 ---------------- 4
------------- 15&
1940-49 ------ 6 ----------------- 0 --------------- 3
------------- 7 ------------ 4 -------- 7 -------- 0 ---------------- 4
------------- 31&
1950-59 ------ 0 ----------------- 4 --------------- 1
------------- 6 ----------- 10 -------- 2 -------- 1 ---------------- 1
------------- 25&
1960-69 ------ 1 ----------------- 0 --------------- 0
------------- 5 ------------ 8 -------- 3 -------- 0 ---------------- 0
------------- 17&
1970-79 ------ 1 ----------------- 0 --------------- 0
------------- 3 ------------ 4 -------- 6 -------- 3 ---------------- 1
------------- 18&
1980-84 ------ 2 ----------------- 0 --------------- 1
------------- 5 ----------- 11 -------- 7 -------- 3 ---------------- 3
------------- 32
Total ----14 ----------- 7 --------- 12 ------ 39 ------ 46 ---- 49
--- 13 --------- 21------- 201
Source: Based on Bosque,1984, op. cit. in Note 34
Among the most outstanding authors we should make special mention of geographers
like Rafael Torres Campos and Ricardo Beltr&n y R&zpide,
historians like Antonio Bl&zquez or G. Latorre, naturalists like
A. Barreiro, sailors like Julio Guill&n or military engineers like
J. de la Llave.
The general historical works that were published during the Restoration
continued to set forth the progress in geographical knowledge of the earth
in general and of its continents and countries, and they therefore continued
to be histories of discoveries and explorations -which at this time reached
as far as the polar regions- but devoted ever more attention to geographical
descriptions and to geographers and their individual works. Among all the
published works, that of Jer&nimo Becker (Los estudios geogr&ficos
en Espa&a. Ensayo de una historia de la Geograf&a, Madrid,
1917) deserves a special mention. The introduction of the new French (and,
to a lesser extent, the new German) geography also led to certain theoretical
debates published in particular after 1910.
In referring to the content and focus of the studies that were made
before the civil war, one expert, Professor Joaqu&n Bosque Maurel,
has seen fit to write that the studies in the history of geography were
produced "with a greater concern for description than for explanation,
of the facts and of the protagonists" (35) .
In the years immediately after the Spanish civil war (), geographers
went on writing this type of history, which continued to concentrate on
the usual topics: discoveries, chorographic studies, biographies, and the
contributions of individual geographers. Certain authors who had started
to publish before the war continued to do so, (Amando Melon, Jos&
Gavira, Juan Dant&n). The celebration of certain jubilees meant
that certain figures received repeated attention, both from geographers
and from historians: the cases of Humboldt and Jorge Juan particularly
stand out because of the number of studies that were devoted to them. The
history of cartography, of geodesic triangulation, and of the scientific
institutions aroused renewed interest, centered in particular on the figures
of Iba&ez de Ibero and Francisco de Coello. There appeared also
more general works on specific topics, such as Spanish military cartography
in the 19th century (36) ; at the same time certain new topics were tackled,
such as the history of administrative divisions or the history of certain
geographical concepts (37) .
In certain cases, the concern for the history of the discipline in a
broad, general perspective was united with an interest in the most recent
changes and in the theoretical foundations of geography (38) ; there was
also an appreciation of less well-known traditions such as the Catalan
tradition (39) . Meanwhile, the most recently published anthologies adopted
a short chronology, only including texts from the 19th and 20th centuries
(40) . Handbooks and more general works have on occasions continued to
incorporate historical contributions that, by through legitimacy and self-justification,
serve a socializing function.
The contribution of social and naval historians continues to stand out
and, thanks to these, we have new and valuable studies: of the geographical
institutions, like the Casa de Contrataci&n by J. Pulido, or the
Geographical Society of Madrid an excellent study by E. Hern&ndez
S of cosmographs such as Alonso de Chaves, by P. Casta&
of the role of geography in the economic development of the Enlightenment,
by J. Mu&oz P& of the development of American geography,
by F. Morales, J. Mu&oz P&rez, R. Serrera, et al. Historians
of science show a growing interest in navigation and journeys (J. M. Lopez
Pi&ero); in expeditions (Lucena); or in the process of geometrication
of the earth (A. Lafuente). At the same time, institutions like the Naval
Museum, the Museum of Natural Sciences, The National Library, the Geographical
Service of the Army, and others tackled the publication of systematic catalogues
of their richly documented archives or the publication of manuscripts and
other works of great geographical interest which had become out of print.
Without doubt, the range of Spanish studies in the history of geography
is today richer and more varied than was the case in years gone by, both
with regard to available sources, and also to individual papers and interest
in new topics. In general, though, there is still a predominance of descriptive
and monographic studies, while those of an interpretative nature remain
a minority. At all events, one frequently notes a failure to set these
studies within a more general frame of reference linked to the great theoretical
concerns, or within the history of science at the time in question. In
one sense, however, this should be the main concern in setting up research
programs, since these urgently need to go beyond a scope restricted to
the discipline itself, and shed -if it is still there- the concern with
apologetics for, and self-justification of, the discipline, and instead,
in close collaboration with philosophers, epistemologists, historians and
sociologists, adopt a more general frame of reference.
The general frame of reference and the goals of the program
The beginning of the research program in the history of geography undertaken
by our Department team at the University of Barcelona was closely linked
to the changes that began to take place in the science of geography in
the 1 950's, and which were felt in Spain towards the end of the 1 960's.
In those years, the delayed impact in our country of the quantitative revolution
and, immediately following it, the first echoes of the antipositivist revolution
(41) forced us to question the theoretical presuppositions that had prevailed
in the geographical community up to that point. This gave rise to theoretical
reflections which soon led to an epistemological, historical and sociological
enquiry into the foundations and development of the discipline.
In the first phase we had to come to grips with the theoretical and
methodological presuppositions of the "new geographies", and spread the
word. Some of the first works whose aim was to systematize and proselytize
were published in the Revista de Geograf&a of the then recently
founded Department of Geography at the University of Barcelona (42) , and
also in the collection "Geographical Thought and Method", where we published
a translation -some 20 years after its original publication- of the particularly
important theoretical paper by Fred K. Shaeffer, Exceptionalism in Geography
(43) . The promotion of a systematic understanding both of the basic theoretical
texts of thenew movements and also the standpoints that criticized the
prevailing ideas was what lay behind the founding of Geo Cr&tica,
subtitled "Critical Papers in Human Geography" the first issue appeared
in January 1976, and its aims of criticism and renewal were manifest right
from the start (44) .
The changes that took place revealed, time and again, the need to answer
questions concerning the definition and goal of geography, concerning the
strands of continuity that existed between the new developments and the
old geographical tradition, concerning the validity of geographical synthesis
and the integration of physical and human aspects into the discipline,
concerning the position of geography in the system of the sciences and
its relation to other scientific disciplines, particularly to those that
had hitherto been considered as "adjacent" or "auxiliary" sciences. There
was a constant recurrence of the subject of continuity and change, while
the changes that had recently taken place were so momentous that they appeared
to question the notion of the linear development and progressive accumulation
of the science.
All of this led to a consideration of the subject of "normal science",
of scientific revolutions, as well as of the paradigms, concepts that had
earlier been applied in Geography in an attempt to explain the changes
that were taking place (45) .
Without doubt, Kuhn's work on scientific revolutions had crystallized
many ideas -still diffuse in the early 60's- about the farreaching nature
of the revolutionary changes which various branches of science had undergone
during the 1 950's. Geography was one of the subjects most profoundly affected,
and the notion of "revolution" had come to be widely accepted in the geographical
community. It is no accident that in 1963 lan Burton published an article
on "The quantitative revolution and theoretical geography", where he emphasized
the importance of the change and defended the view that the revolution
had triumphed in geography (46) . Shortly afterwards, Kuhn's ideas were
applied directly to geography in order to justify the change of paradigm,
and they became standard in the discipline (47) .
In early 1970, when all of these issues were making themselves felt
in geography in Spain, the debate over Kuhn's proposals was very lively,
and serious criticisms had already been leveled at his scheme, which nevertheless
proved to be enormously stimulating (48) . This is why we need to look
at alternative views, especially starting from Gaston Bachelard's and Michel
Foucault's ideas of "epistemological breaks" and epistemic changes (49)
, and ending with the positivism-historicism contrast proposed by Ernest
Cassirer, Von Wright (50) and other epistemologists, which in one form
is found implicitly in geography in the work of Shaeffer, whose theory
is closely linked to German neopositivist circles (51) .
This last cited theoretical frame of reference provides us with a basis
for presenting the history of contemporary geographical thought in terms
of the recurrent contrast between positivism and historicism (52) . This
interpretative scheme was also applied to the evolution of contemporary
physical geography (53) , as well as to the development of Spanish geography
and to the thought of certain contemporary geographers (54) .
Just as Kuhn predicted, every revolutionary change in a science leads
to the rewriting of its history (55) . Right from the outset, this is precisely
what quantitative geographers did: they quoted new accounts and authorities
in their struggle to gain acceptance for the new ideas (56) . But this
at the same time threw doubt on the whole of accepted history, since it
put in question the value and significance of the historical precedents
that had been commonly accepted for much longer than the strictly contemporary
From 1974 on, in the collection "Pensamiento y M&todo Geogr&ficos"
(Geographical thought and Method), we aimed to re-xamine the authorities
and the significant works in the history of modern geography, including
both figures who had had little direct impact on the Spanish tradition
and texts that had been forgotten or were little known. This is the reason
behind the partial translation of Varenius' Geograf&a Generalis
(1650) (57) and of the study concerning the significance of this work (58)
, as well as certain later publications (59) .
It was becoming increasingly clear that the revolutionary scientific
changes affected both theory and methods, while at the same time producing
decisive changes in questions of prestige and power relationships within
the scientific community.
In the 1 950's and 1 960's the debate surrounding the introduction of
quantitative geography had turned into a real civil war
what was at stake was not merely scientific conceptions, but also social
factors relating to control over the community (60) . At the same time,
the early research that we carried out into the institucional development
of contemporary geography showed the importance of the opposition and social
conflicts which it had produced within the scientific community in the
1 9th century. It also highlighted the decisive role played by the defence
of the geographers' interests, and the strategies that were adopted for
this, in the configuration of academic geography from the turn of the century
What began to emerge from all of this was an autonomous program in the
history of geography which sought to encompass the whole development of
modern geography, from the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution up
to the present. Right from the start, due to the nature of its origins
and goals, this program necessarily implied profound historical, theoretical
and sociological dimensions. As it has unfolded, we have been led to forge
ever increasing links with other specialists studying the same topics but
from different angles.
This research program, in which we have been fully engaged for the last
fifteen years, makes certain presuppositions which need to be made clear.
1 Above all, an acceptance of the usefulness of historical research
in the work of today's scientists. Faced with different and succeeding
"new geographies" (62) and faced with the diversity of theoretical and
methodological options in our subject today, historical research, guided
by well-defined theoretical goals and permanently and dynamically in touch
with current scientific practice, offers a perspective that allows us to
discriminate, evaluate and select among different approaches and methods,
and allows us to compare the different theories that are put forward.
2 From the educational point of view, the history of a subject, and
in general the history of science, plays an important part because it helps
us to respond undogmatically to questions concerning the boundaries of
each branch of knowledge and their relations with other sciences. Moreover,
and perhaps more importantly, it allows us to show that scientific oroblems
have invariablv been formulated historically, and this underlines that
what is important in science is never the answers but the formulation of
the questions (63) .
3 The history of geography, like that of any subject, also has a value
not in its search for legitimacy, but as a contribution
to the history of science, and in general to the history of society. Our
interest is in the history of geography in relation to other aspects of
scientific activity in the past, that is to say as history of science,
of culture and of society.
4 Although our program touches on general issues, the prime focus of
our research is on the history of geography and the history of science
in Spain and in the Iberoamerican countries. This tradition is richer and
more important than is normally appreciated by historians brought up in
the Anglosaxon, French or G indeed it is essential in our
discipline in order to understand the origin of modern geography. Finally,
our project also has a political dimension in that we are convinced that
the history of hispanic science can contribute to eliminate the feelings
of inferiority often found in our countries. This has grave consequences
for our university students since they accept uncritically the stereotypes
of superiority of other traditions, without a due appreciation of their
they are thus easy prey to cultural colonization and become
incapable of conceiving and carrying out ambitious scientific projects
Continuity and Change
The problem of continuity and change within the scientific disciplines
is felt acutely in a science like geography, which has been studied without
a break for -at least- virtually three thousand years: The comparison of
present-day geographical works with those of the past reveals immediately
profound differences of goals and method. While the term that is used for
this branch of science, "geography", i.e. description of the earth, has
remained constant, and while members of the community tend to affirm the
notion of continuity, an examination of the evolution of the discipline
allows us to see the great differences in the work of the geographer, not
only from the ages of Herodotus and Estrab&n, but even between what
was done in the 18th century and what is today undertaken by these scholars.
This led us to set up a line of research that would attempt to reconstruct
an unprejudiced history of geography from the Renaissance and the Scientific
Revolution up to the present. We hold that the modern era is essential
to the modifications to the content of the discipline, but that changes
from classical times up to the Renaissance may, for our purposes, be disregarded.
As well as the analysis of the changes within the subject, we are interested
in its relations with other branches of knowledge, and the interchanges
and reciprocal influences that there may have been. The study of these
relationships is very important, both at times when there was no marked
scientific specialization, with scientists often simply changing the boundaries
between the various sciences, and also from the 19th century on, when as
a rule we find institutions and scientific communities clearly structured
and differentiated.
From the very beginning, geography has had a dual nature, partly mathematical
and partly historical, making this study of great interest, but at the
same time creating a danger because of the breadth and diversity of the
directions that could be followed.
The traditional division of general geography into mathematical (or
astronomical), physical (or natural) and political (or civil) reflects
the different facets of this branch of knowledge. This division was clearly
made as early as the 17th century. As a mixed mathematical science it studied
the geographical characteristics that derive from the shape and movements
of the earth, made measurements and produced maps. As a physical or natural
science, it was concerned with the composition of the planet, with the
shape of its surface, with the distribution of land and sea -this latter
being the specific subject matter of hydrography- and of the distribution
of vegetable and animal life. Finally, as a political science, its concerns
were the characteristics of the peoples of the earth and the nature of
their societies.
At the same time, the special, particular or chorographic side of geography
described continents, countries and regions in all the complexity of their
physical and human traits, and this became an enormously ambitious encyclopedic
undertaking.
As a descriptive science geography was a "historical" subject, and it
figures as such in many of the classifications of the sciences from the
R however, at the same time it was included, closely related
to astronomy, as a mixed mathematical or physicomathematical science.
As a mixed mathematical science, geography was studied as part of Mathematics
at the universities, and it has been present in practically all the great
scientific institutions of modern times. In the 17th century it was in
the vanguard of scientific knowledge, and it was associated with the solutions
to some of the great problems of the Scientific Revolution (65) . This
relationship and the growing separation which took place between geography
and mathematics in the 18th century have been the subject of some of our
papers (66) . The publication of the work of Manuel de Aguirre (1782) made
accessible a basic text of 18th century S it was representative
of the "new geography" which was possible thanks to the definitive resolution
of the problem of the size and shape of the earth (67) .
The study of the mathematical dimensions of geography naturally leads
to the history of cartography in the modern a some
of our work has already dealt with this topic, and it is one of the fields
we would like to tackle in greater depth in the future (68) . The republication
and study of the first great scientific bibliography of the Hispanic world
-Andr&s Gonz&lez de Barcia's edition of A. Le&n Pinelo's
Epitome (1737)- puts at our disposal a copious source of references to
works on geography, cosmography and navigation, as well as ancient maps,
which could prove extremely useful for later studies.
We must also look at the relationship between physical geography and
the physical sciences, and our project began by turning to the study of
the specific contributions of geographers to the development of theories
concerning the earth, and also to the influences that have made themselves
felt from other branches of science. The systematization of data from diverse
sources on relief, rivers, seas and lakes, and the speculations concerning
the laws of their distribution over the surface of the earth, are contributions
of the first order that geographers made to the study which we today call
geology. Issues that particularly interest us are: how physical geography
became today's geology and similarly, what were the changing relations
between the former and both the geology of plants and zoogeography.
Through political and regional geography, relations were established
with a wide range of social sciences, which only started to become scientific
disciplines in the 18th century. In that century, political economics,
statistics and ethnography -in particular- overlapped with geography, both
in aims and methods. As in the cases already quoted, their development
as independent disciplines could not help affecting the integrative ambitions
of the latter.
The evolution of the names of the branches of knowledge reflects the
trials and changes in the evolution of science. The first thing that strikes
us is the large number of branches which appeared in the luxuriant trees
of earlier classifications of the sciences, but which today are not recognized
Another noteworthy fact is the semantic changes that affect the meaning
of names of the sciences. Geography itself is an interesting example of
As the 17th century progressed, the description of the earth (geography)
gave way to the scientific study of the earth (geology), but the new science
-which finally acquired this name among other possibilities that were also
current- developed only one of the facets that made up classical and modern
geography. With the development of astronomy, geophysics, botany (especially
botanical geography), statistics, political economy, etc., geography was
becoming reduced essentially to chorography (the description of countries
and regions) and topography (the description of places and counties). The
former, however, which could have turned into chorology, was used for one
part of geography (regional geography), and the latter turned into a new
branch of science with different aims. In fact, in the 19th century "topography"
was used in two different senses. One was the traditional sense, and was
widely used in medicine at the time, which had not yet undergone the bacteriological
revolution and which still laid great emphasis on the old Hippocratic line
of environmental causes. We are referring to the "medical topographies",
occasionally on the grand scale -and therefore truly topographic- but sometimes
medium or small scale -a in all of these we see reflected
the old geographical line of regional studies (70) . The second sense was
new: it referred to the appearance of a new science in the hands of new
practitioners for the geodesical and cartographical operations in the territory.
The persistence and the changes in the names of branches of science
are certain they give us a shifting panorama of the
system of sciences in relation to the transformations in the bases of scientific
After the process of specialization -starting in the 18th century and
increasing in the 19th- geography might have disappeared, with its functions
being taken over by other sciences: cosmography, an old name now
in desuetude but which was used institutionally even up to the 1 9
statistics, or the study of a state' physiography, or the descriptive
study of the earth's surface in all its complexity, which was on the point
of replacing ge ecology, or the science of relationship
between living creatur
topography ... But it did not disappear for various reasons, among which
we should emphasize the educational: the presence of Geography in the educational
system as well as its educational and cultural role.
In the whole of this diachronic process, one event in the 19th century
was to take on an ever-increasing significance. This was the formation
of well structured scientific communities with strong institutional backing.
These were the cause of the crystallization of science into clearly demarcated
disciplines that competed among themselves for the well defined fields
of learning. It began as a problem in the rational classification of libraries
- which presupposed a classifica it thence turned
into a philosophical question concerning the classification of the fields
it continued in the 18th century as a more or less successful
exercise and effort
and it reached its conclusion
in the 1 9th century with the crystallization into rigidly demarcated disciplines
that were studied by mutually competinc scientific communities.
Models of professionalization and institutionalization
Institutionalization and professionalization, with the concomitant training
in the scientific communities, has in reality played an essential part
in the formation and development of the scientific disciplines. It is these
communities, backed by teaching and research institutions, that have made
possible the process of specialization, which was fundamental to scientific
progress in the 18th an 19th centuries.
The sociology of science has shown quite clearly how important a community
focus and institutional factors are in the process of academic socialization
and in the selection and acceptance of scientific concepts. It is through
the creation and consolidation of scientific communities that social action
normally makes itself felt in the development of scientific thought. This
is why, we might say, the old controversy between internalists and externalists
can be given a new perspective, focussing on those institutional and community
The scientific community, which is a subsystem of society, is in its
turn broken down differentiated, disciplinary communities, with varying
prestige and social power. In these communities, when the practical, applied
or technical side is more important than the purely scientific, we mav
speak of professional bodies.
Although the communities have intellectual interests in common, they
also have to defend corporate interests, vis-a-vis both their individual
members and also competing communities. In pursuing these interests, they
display -both within the community and outside it- social and intellectual
strategies that are sometimes essential for the evolution of scientific
Within this general view, the study of the community of geographers
became a cornerstone of our research. We have distinguished two separate
periods. During the first, reaches to the 18th or early 19th century, the
profession of geographer existed, but there was little specialization and
professionalization. By this we mean that geographers, just like other
scientists, would often study different fields of learning. In the second,
starting in the middle of the 19th century, national scientific communities
were formed and these, through organizations and intersecting relations,
became integrated into a supranational community of geographers with rigidly
defined rules of access and modes of operation. Our project aims to establish:
the specific and general characteristics of the community of geographers
and their relationship with the rest of the
the different
models of professionalization and of organization of th
the rules of access and the inte and in general the
social strategies that are deployed and their influence on scientific activity
and the concepts that are generated. We believe we have been able to demonstrate
conclusively that, in the case of the community of geographers, certain
aspects in the evolution of the subject are not fully comprehensible unless
we take into account all these social aspects (71) .
The process of socialization which takes place within a community is
essential to the way in which pra the vocabulary,
the concepts and even the very theories put forward will be affected by
entry requirements, syllabuses, reading and practical assignments, professional
applications, etc. This is why, when different scientific communities tackle
subjects that totally or partially coincide, the relation between the community
structure and the intellectual output is of particular interest. This is
a new, stimulating way of tackling the general issue of the connection
between social factors and the development of scientific thought.
Geography is especially well situated for this type of comparative analysis.
As a science that deals with the earth's spatial arrangement and relations,
it well overlap more or less extensively with other subjects that deal
with the same space. We feel that it is of great interest to observe how
scientists or professionals from different communities approach the same
Apart from geographers, some of the scientific communities that deal
in their various ways with the earth's space are: geologists, geophysicists,
soil scientists, botanists, oceanographers, economists, anthropologists,
human ecologists, sociologists and historians. To these we need to add
several technical-scientific communities whose work, which requires previous
training of a scientific kind, impinges on that space: highway,
forestry, civil
and the armed forces.
For all of these, just as for geographers, the earth's space is the ineluctable
setting for the working out of their theories or for their professional
operations that seek to change it. However, corresponding to the various
aims, each one selects and highlights different aspects. It is an essential
part of our research to show in what way this takes place and how the community
structure affects the selection and development of spatial concepts and
theories. This is why we have chosen some of these communities to start
we cannot deny that we would prefer to have the time and the
means to embrace them all.
The methodology that we use includes the analysis of various dimensions.
One is a study of the institutional structure: legislation concerning qualifications
intern recruitment, selection, quality
control. Another looks at the process of academic socialization: syllabuses
t ideological justification
of the dignity and usefulness of the work to be done. A third is an inventory
of the members of the
this should be as complete
as possible, thus allowing subsequent prosopographic analysis. Finally,
the study and appreciation of the scientific output, of the professional
work and of the other intellectual activities of the members of the group,
with special attention, in our case, to the publications and activities
that refer to the earth's space.
The aim of all this is an understanding of the intellectual bases and
the social interests that might have affected the development of concepts
and scientific theories related to the earth' we must separate,
on the one hand, any common aspects that are the result of ideas prevailing
in the scientific community in general or in society at each moment in
history, and, on the other, those specific, distinguishing features related
to socialization in the discipline and to the intellectual and professional
aims of the community.
With this methodology we have already undertaken a study of the corps
of Spanish military engineers. Throughout the 18th and part of the 19th
centuries -due to the late appearance of civil engineersthis group was
essential to cartographic work, to the description and study of the land,
and to spatial arrangement. For the 18th century we have produced a biographical
index and inventory of the scientific and spatial work undertaken by the
thousand or so members of the group (72) , and also a study of their scientific
training and institutional structure (73) , as well as various analyses
of their spatial operations (74) . We are now carrying out an analysis
of their scientific and cartographic output, relating it to the norms of
the corps (orders that determined the type of maps and descriptions to
be made), and to their training in the Spanish Military Academies of Mathematics
in the 1 8th century. As to the 19th century, the study of this corps has
been set in a more general analysis of the role of geography and the use
of spatial concepts in military training (75) .
At the same time we have tackled, either directly or in relation to
other lines of research, the study of oceanographers (76) , forestry engineers
(77) , agricultural engineers (78) , highway engineers (79) , soil scientists
(80) , anthropologists (81) , and, as we have already said, geographers.
If the whole project is allowed to continue for a few more years, we hope
to be able to reach interesting conclusions, within our limited scope,
concerning the general issue of the relation between social factors and
the development of scientific knowledge.
In our view, this corporative and institutional analysis is also in
close relation to the problem of the formation and evolution of the scientific
disciplines. The differences in "these rational undertakings that are the
scientific disciplines" have both an intellectual and a social dimension.
From the intellectual point of view, the disciplines are distinguished
by the key issues which
from the social viewpoint,
by the ecological, i.e. institutional, setting in which they have developed.
Starting with the institutionalization and formation of the scientific
community, there is a growing differentiation that leads to a vocabulary,
concepts and traditions that become constantly more distinct. The disciplinary
boundaries and the existence of conflicts between communities set limits,
in certain cases, to contacts and intel at other times
they result in new relations that affect theoretical and methodological
evolution.
Of the two dimensions that have to be taken into account in the definition
and demarcation of the scientific d