Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
topic of Environment and Society
. (And on the science side, a series of reports by
the US National Research Council on sustainability, human dimensions of global
change and common property resources acknowledge the value of engaging the
social sciences [www.nrc.edu].)
While fairly defi nite, the borders that demarcate geography from these various
other fi elds in the wider discourse of environmental geography are suffi ciently
porous that two-way traffi c occurs quite readily, as many of our chapters bear out.
In some cases, environmental geographers feel as much
part
of these other fi elds as
their own. In other cases, they either draw upon the other fi elds to make their own
distinctive contributions or else seek to shape them by 'exporting' their particular
skills, perspectives and insights. Whatever the 'terms of engagement', an important
common denominator applies here: most environmental geographers happily see
themselves as part of a
wider
project, which they can learn from and shape. Today,
'the geographical experiment' is far, far more extensive than Mackinder could have
possibly envisaged. Indeed, one might argue that there has never been more interest
in the study of human-environment relations - from students, publics, states, fi rms
and a range of other stakeholders - than there is today.
Geography, it is fair to say, does not occupy centre stage in the wider discourse
of environmental geography. No one subject does. This fact might well have disap-
pointed Mackinder, but if he were alive today, we would suggest to him that cen-
trality is not the issue. Far more important is that environmental geographers are
able to contribute distinctive and signifi cant things to researchers, teachers, students
and other stakeholders involved in the wider discourse.
Environmental Geography: Unity and Difference
Having loosely defi ned environmental geography, some further questions arise.
What, it may be asked, is to be gained by abandoning the narrow, normative 'sym-
metrical' defi nition of the fi eld and embracing a broader, more inclusive one? The
answer to this question depends upon us answering another: namely, what do envi-
ronmental geographers - ecumenically defi ned - have in common? Some obvious
answers come immediately to mind.
First, as per our enlarged defi nition of environmental geography, they all study
some aspect of society or nature in relation to one another rather than alone. They
all take as axiomatic David Harvey's (1996) observation that 'all social . . . projects
are...projects about environment, and vice versa' (p. 189). Second, they are all
engaged in discussion about the character, purpose, meaning and proper manage-
ment of these socio-natural relations (in peer review journals, edited topics like this
one, monographs, textbooks, lectures, seminars, policy briefs, etc.). These discus-
sions involve various semantically rich terms, metaphors and analogies - such as
'dependent' and 'independent' variables, cause and consequence, condition and
outcome, feedback and perturbation, hybrid actants, dialectical contradiction, force
and resistance, co-constitution, and so on. Third, the specifi c knowledge claims in
question are produced largely by professionals who regard it as their job - an occu-
pational objective - to produce them. In other words, the discourse of environmental
geography is not generated by accident or happenstance but intentionally and as a
formal, full-time pursuit. Fourth, and relatedly, this knowledge has the specifi c
qualities of all academic discourse: namely, it is derived from disciplined thought
and inquiry, is somewhat (or very) esoteric, and commands a certain authority from
