ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this essay we will discuss about the evolution of geography in Russia.
Beginning of the Tradition:
Geographic heritage in pre-revolutionary Russia appears to have been founded much earlier than in France and Great Britain and even in Germany, and it was here that the establishment of the tradition received royal patronage. Thus, the Russians had a long history of geographical work, including the preparation of maps and atlases and the writing of regional monographs.
It was the colonial expansion in the late seventeenth century and in the early eighteenth century which necessitated the accurate geographical information and mapping of the area being colonised. Several expeditions were carried out along with the colonial expansion, with the purpose of mapping down the location of rivers, coasts and mountains, and to identify places where fur and precious metals could be found.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Peter the Great, who ruled Russia between 1682 and 1725, recognised the vital importance of having accurate geographical information to guide the eastward expansion of the empire. In 1719, all official Russian map making activities were placed under the direction of Ivan Kirilov, the first Russian to be appointed as the head of the cartographic office. He supervised the preparation of an atlas of Russia which was published in 1734. In the preparation of the atlas, he took technical assistance of French cartographers.
The great Russian encyclopaedist M. V. Lomonosov insisted that the exploring parties be asked to make systematic collection of information about the physical character of the land, the population and the conditions of the economy. In 1758, Lomonosov was appointed the head of the world’s first officially named department of geography, which was in the Russian Academy of Sciences.
It was not until 1768, three years after the death of Lomonosov, that the Academy of Sciences organised the first expedition for the specific purpose of gathering information and reporting on the physical and economic geography of a part of the national territory. The southern part of European Russia and the Ukraine were surveyed in the late seventeenth century and the maps on the basis of the survey were published in Amsterdam.
The establishment of the department of geography in the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1758, much before the birth of the founders of modern classical geography, Alexander von Humboldt and Carl Ritter, showed that the tradition of geography in an organised way first developed in Russia rather than in Germany. Because of the language barrier, as most of the earlier works were written in the Russian, the contemporary Russian geography could not make its impact felt on Germany and France.
German Influence on Early Russian Geography:
Although the Russian tradition of geography was older than that of Germany, but it was the German tradition whose impact on the Russian geography was more pronounced. The works of Auton Friedrich Busching had a profound effect on the Russian geographic heritage. It was in 1766 that the part of his Neue Erdbeschreibung dealing with Russia was translated into Russian, in which he described the division of European Russia into latitudinal zones of differing natural conditions—north, middle and south.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Busching’s proposal was given due academic recognition by the Russian geographers who initiated a movement calling for the division of the national territory into natural regions for the practical purposes of administration.
Large numbers of regional descriptions, very much on the pattern suggested by Busching, were prepared by the Russian geographers. Most of the regional descriptions followed political units as regional base. Thus, the geography that developed in Russia in the later part of the eighteenth century, as a result of Busching, was not ‘pure geography’ (reine geography). The concept of Staatenkunde seemed to have prevailed in the contemporary geographical methodology in Russia, in contrast to the concept of ‘Landerkunde’ in Germany and France.
James and Martin identify certain persistent characteristics of Russian geography in the early nineteenth century which included- emphasis on regions as the basis of organisation for geographical works that the regions are real entities that can be objectively defined; the study of these regions was undertaken for practical purposes, i.e. the emphasis on the social relevance of these regions, a form of applied study. While classical geography was undergoing analysis in Germany as each academic discipline sought to establish its separate existence, in Russia the tendency was for scholars with diverse interests to come together as geographers.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In 1840, this created need for some kind of institution to provide a forum for the presentation and discussion of different kinds of studies dealing with the physical world and its human habitants. In 1845, was founded the Imperial Russian Geographical Society by Arsenyev.
The society was known for its diverse specialities, though the promotion of geographical studies was its prime concern. The diverse specialties represented in the Imperial Russian Geographical Society were known collectively as ‘the geographical sciences’.
One of the earlier writers, K. I. Arsenyev who founded the Imperial Geographical Society, published a Short Universal Geography in 1818. The book had strong economic emphasis, reflecting concern with improving the quality of life of the peasants. This book was probably the oldest contribution in ‘liberal geography. Arsenyev prepared a monograph on historical geography of Russian cities in 1832 in which he offered an economic classification of cities.
There is no evidence to show whether Arsenyev met Alexander von Humboldt when the latter visited the city of St. Petersburg in 1829. The Russian Tsar, like Peter the Great, also recognised the vital importance of having accurate geographical information about the virgin land islands of Siberia across the Urals, and under his royal patronage several expeditions to Siberia and the Far East were organised.
Alexander von Humboldt was entrusted by the Russian Tsar to explore the virgin lands across the Ural Mountain. He explored the virgin lands of Siberia as far as the borders of China. He visited the shores of the Caspian Sea. In course of his expedition, Humboldt observed that temperatures varied at the same latitude in accordance with the distance from the ocean. The Russian Tsar was so influenced by Humboldt that he agreed to set up weather stations where weather data could be recorded.
By 1835, the Russian network of recording stations extended all the way from St. Petersburg to an island off the Alaskan mainland. On the basis of the weather data collected at the recording stations, Humboldt deduced the concept of continentally.
This heritage which Humboldt founded, had a profound effect on the contemporary Russian geography, and empirical studies of areal phenomena with the positivist approach formed an inevitable symbiosis for the conceptual framework.
Pre-Revolutionary Russian Geography:
Most of the Russian geographers of the pre-revolutionary period seemed to have had direct or indirect contact with the professional German geographers; some of them studied in the German universities, and were pupils of Ritter, Richthofen, and Ratzel.
But the impact of German geographical ideas had produced quite different results in Russia. Russian geographers of the pre-revolutionary period always believed in the mechanical explanation rather than in teleological explanation, where the phenomena and observation were understood as outcomes of prime causes.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Pre-revolutionary Russian geography seemed to have been centred on Petre Petrovich Semenov, Alexander Ivanovitch Voeikov, V. V. Dokuchaiev, and D. N. Anuchin. They formed the true heritage of the Russian geography which continued its existence even after the October Revolution of 1917.
Professional Geography:
The development of professional geography in pre- revolutionary Russia took place between 1880 and 1914 when the ideas of Richthofen, Ratzel and Hettner made rapid inroads in the contemporary methodological discussions in Russia.
It is interesting to note that the Darwinian tradition which had already consolidated in Germany, failed to make impact in Russia. This was largely because of the fact that similar studies of evolution had already been done in Russia by the biologist N. F. Rulye whose evolutionary ideas did affect a group of Russian historians who specialised in the geographical historical studies,
Professionalism in pre-revolutionary Russian geography seemed to have been initiated by three outstanding followers of Semenov who left distinct imprints on the contemporary methodologies. They were Alexander Ivanovitch Voeikov, V. V. Dokuchaiev and D. N. Anuchin. The first two are credited with innovative studies of climate and soils, and the last one established geography as a major university subject and drew up the curricula for the primary and secondary schools.
Determinism and Indeterminism:
Geography in pre-revolutionary Russia and in Soviet Russia seems to have been badly hit by the contrasting paradigms of ‘determinism’ and ‘indeterminism’, creating an apparent dichotomy in the contemporary geographic methodology vis-a-vis the tradition.
It is interesting to note that neither in Germany nor in France, has such a situation of contrasting paradigms of determinism and indeterminism ever existed. It was the deterministic paradigm that dominated the German geographical thinking, and in France the possibility tradition was dominant.
Determinism:
The concept of struggle and selection is reflected in geographical writings of both pre- and post- revolutionary periods. Similarly, the concept of genre de-vie is inherent in the views of both Russian and Soviet geographers. It was the Russian historians who carried forward the environmentalist views, and the geographers followed them.
The famous historian Sergey Solovyev pointed out that the nature of a country has important significance in history, in the influence which it has on the national character. Similar environmentalist view was expressed by Vasily Klyuchevskiy who explained the effect of the forests, steppes and rivers on the history of Russian people. He said that each of these separately, by itself, took a lively and original part in the formation of the life and the ideas of the Russian man.
Lev Mechnikov carried forward the idea of Klyuchevskiy that the river as a synthesis of all physical geographical conditions was one of the factors which determined the development of society, but at the same time he also recognised that man had played a significant part in the formation of the geographical environment.
He pointed out- ‘Far from geographical fatalism, which the theory of the influence of the environment is often accused of being, in my estimation one should seek the principle of the rise and character of primitive institutions and their subsequent evolution not in the environment itself but in the relations between the environment and the capacity of the people inhabiting a given environment for cooperation and solidarity’.
Thus, Mechnikov spoke of both determinism and indeterminism—a sort of contradiction which seemed to have a profound effect on subsequent geographical works.
G. Plekhnov. The works and ideas of the pre-revolutionary historians are of interest mainly because of their effect on early Marxist scholars and hence on a later generation of Soviet geographers. It is interesting that most pre-revolutionary Russian geographers seemed to have been free from environmentalist thinking.
It was the historians and not geographers who were largely responsible in influencing the thought of the roost eminent of early Russian Marxist philosophers, G. Plekhanov.
Plekhanov elaborated the idea of Lev Mechnikov in a different way. He asserted that in order to assess correctly the influence of the geographical environment on the historical destiny of humankind, it was necessary to trace how the natural environment acted upon the type and nature of the social environment which in the closest way determined the character and proclivities of man. His idea was to introduce the theory into the framework of the Marxist analysis of society.
Plekhanov further claimed that the ‘peculiarities of the geographical environment determined the development of the’ productive forces, the development of the productive forces determined the development of the economic forces and directly after them also all the other social relations’. Marxism for Plekhanov appeared to be the application to social development of the Darwinian Theory of the adaptation of biological species to the conditions of the environment.
The mixture of geographical determinism and economic deviation was further reflected in Plekhanov’s conclusion that the character of the surrounding natural environment determines the character of man’s productive activities and the character of his means of production. However, the means of production determine just as inevitably the mutual relations of people in the process of production.
N. N. Baranskiy, the noted economic geographer of the Soviet Union, carried forward the basic ideas of Plekhanov. In a statement in 1926, he said- ‘the influence of natural conditions on man is taken into account in the Marxist scheme of social development to the extent in which these natural conditions form a natural basis for the material productive forces which determine the productive relations, and through them the legal and political superstructure and, finally, the forms of “social conscience”‘.
Baranskiy also ridiculed ‘geographical nihilism’ (referring to an insignificant role to the geographical environment in the development of society) as being theoretically incorrect, as, denying any significance for natural conditions and removing human society from the material environment of its existence and development, it inevitably leads to Menshevik idealism.
The Marxist-Leninist position is as far from this view as it is from that of environmentalism, or ‘geographical fatalism’. He, however, managed to build up within Marxist framework a strong case for a more realistic approach to the natural environment by Soviet geographers. Baranskiy’s ideas contain an echo of Ratzel as well as a rejection of the ideas of Buckle, Chernyshevskiy and Pokrovskiy.
Plekhanov and Baranskiy appeared to have held a positive approach to the geographical environment. Baranskiy’s views on the relationship between man and the geographical environment seemed to have influenced other Soviet geographers, and Moscow University witnessed the establishment of a distinct heritage of Baranskiyan tradition of ‘geographical fatalism’.
Adapting Baranskiy’s basic idea, Anuchin attempted to develop a concept of ‘neo- detenninism. To him the nature of geographical environment included not only pure nature, but also man and the results of his activities. By ‘geographical environment’, he meant that part of the landscape envelope of the Earth in which direct links are found between human society and the rest of nature. It is the part of nature which has been changed by man’s activities, and which in turn exercises certain influences on the development of human society.
In his book, Theoretical Problems of Geography, published in 1960, Anuchin realised that the influence of geographical conditions on the life of a society is beyond all doubts. It would be wrong to see in the assertion of this influence a manifestation of geographical determinism.
The scientific worthlessness of the latter does not rest in the fact that it recognises the influence of the geographical factor on the development of society as a basic condition of this development, but in the fact that this influence was elevated to the position of a basic principle of development.
He identified that the main fault of geographic determinism lay in its mechanical nature. The environmentalists saw certain influences as producing certain consequences; whereas in fact the problem of cause and effect is a very complex one. It is this mechanical aspect of determinism which Marxism rejects and not determinism in the broader sense of the word.
To him, indeterminism appeared to be anti-scientific, an idealistic view of the world, arising from subjective idealism. Indeterminism sharply separates and contraposes human society to the rest of nature, and so rejects geography as a science.
Anuchin found an ardent supporter of his views in Saushkin who attempted to elaborate Anuchin’s basic idea in his Introduction to Economic Geography published in 1958. In the book, he emphasised that the geographical environment is not a passive and uniform witness of human history.
The history of nature and the history of society are linked in the closest manner and influence the development of one another. This becomes even clearer the more the society changes the surrounding geographical environment.
Man at every stage in his history has become more capable of changing nature according to his own interests, yet he can never change the laws of nature or formulate new laws of nature. ‘The whole mastery of man over nature is confined to understanding her laws and being able to apply them in his interests’.
Indeterminism:
In contrast to the concept of geographical determinism as one of the ruling paradigms, a group of Russian scholars of the pre-revolutionary and also of the Soviet period, attempted to focus on the concept of indeterminism. Indeterminism (i.e. opposition to geographical determinism) appeared to have been built upon the conceptual framework of ‘possibilism’ and that developed into a ‘state-sponsored’ ruling paradigm during the Stalin era.
Chernyshevskiy was one of the earliest pre-Marxist revolutionary scholars who, in his article in 1887-88 attempted to trace out the difference of character between peoples and their national character, and the general character of elements promoting progress without raising the bogey of the geographical environment.
Pokrovskiy stated in 1931 that ‘Man can master nature and it is not nature that is the foundation of his economic activity. Nature is the only material for this activity. The foundation of the economics of man is man’s labour’. Both Chernyshevskiy and Pokrovskiy were of the opinion that at an early stage of human development, the environment has a more direct and decisive influence than at a later stage when improved tools and techniques enable man to control nature to an increasing degree.
At a later stage of development, however, geographical and climatic factors are no longer the determining forces. The concept of geographical determinism was criticised as being a scientific weapon of the bourgeois revolution.
It was in 1938 that ‘indeterminism’ became an officially approved ruling paradigm when Stalin in his official statement clearly stated- ‘The geographical environment indisputably is one of the constant and necessary conditions of society, and of course, influences the development of society; it accelerates or retards the speed of development of society.
However, its influence is not a determining in as much as the changes and development of society proceed incomparably faster than the changes and development of the geographical environment. Geographical environment cannot be the chief cause of development of that which undergoes fundamental changes in the course of a few hundred years’.
Voskanyan also raised doubt over the role of the geographical environment, and emphasised the activities of man in changing the natural features. He believed in the ultimate control of nature itself by man. A Canadian geographer Sebor felt that a strong reaction to geographical determinism might lead Soviet geographers along the road to possibilism.
However, I. Gerasimov rejected the assertion of Sebor on the grounds that possibilism is simply a form of geographical determinism. Sebor’s claim that Soviet geographers are possibilists is not borne out by the evidence.
Saushkin also felt that possibilism is just as incompatible with Marxism as environmentalism, although he admitted that the idea that geographers should be interested in nature only from the point of view of the possibilities that it offers to the economy, is rather widely held among Soviet economists.
He agreed that possibilism completely rejects determinism, but nevertheless considered that it errs in regarding nature as only an object for exploitation. His explanation of the origin of possibilism was, to say the least, novel.
After pointing out that relations between man and nature are not similar to the relations between the exploiter and the exploited, he went on to say that in the capitalist world it frequently happens that the bourgeois scientists try to apply the social relationships of their system based on exploitation, to natural phenomena, hence the idea of geographical possibilism.
However, a group of prominent Soviet geographers such as Kalesnik, Konstantinov and Semevskiy, strongly attacked the neo-determinist concept of Anuchin as being too impractical to be considered. On the man-environment relation, they insisted on the validity of the concept of ‘anthropocentrism’ which considers ‘man as the master and exploiter of nature and of nature as only an object of exploitation.’ The controversy of determinism and indeterminism has led to open debate on the nature of geography in Russia/ Soviet Union.
While Anuchin, Saushkin and their supporters held the view of a unified geography, Gerasinov, Kalenisk and others (mainly physical geographers) called it a segregated science. Almost on the same line developed an apparent dichotomy between positivism and critical theory in the Soviet geography.
Marxist/Socialist Geography:
Marxist/Socialist geography, which developed in the Soviet Union after the Great Revolution of 1917, tends to emphasis on spatial patterns of the determining influence of class forces operating through the laws of historical and dialectical materialism. It stresses on social justice and equality in contrast to class-based inequalities and attempts to offer explanations, seeking for the laws to analyse the societal processes.
The socialist revolution in Russia, as a result of the class-based struggle, seemed to have inevitably created what may be called ‘spatial dialectics’ which included the two most intrinsic elements viz., ‘social process’ and ‘spatial form’, which formed the very basis of a dialectical unity.
It was as early as 1818 that K. I. Arsenyev realised the need to provide explanations to study the genesis of the rural poverty and its spatial form. The same tradition of giving emphasis on the study of class-based inequalities in their spatial dialectic seemed to have continued even after the Great Revolution, and formed the major ruling paradigm in the Soviet geography. Russian/Soviet geographers are more concerned with the material conditions of the class-based society. Despite the conflicting approaches, they all focused on the material life of the society and the character of the social system.
Commenting on the new direction of geography after 1917, James and Martin point out:
‘Most of the distinctive characteristics of Soviet geography can be traced back to the pre-revolutionary period. The tendency to look at natural landscape as systems of interrelated parts is typically Russian and derives from men like Semenov, Voeikov and Doukuchaiev. The continued interest in such physical processes as the heat and water balances goes back to Voeikov. The pre-occupation with the drawing of regional boundaries began in the eighteenth century, as did the concern with practical problems of economic development. And to find geography is a focus of diverse specialties rather than a remnant of the separation of the disciplines is in line with longstanding Russian tradition’.
The geographers in the Academy of Sciences made practical use of the large amount of information collected during the preceding half century under the guidance of Semenov and Anuchin. Geographers were asked to make an inventory of natural resources.
One of the distinctive aspects of the Socialist geography in the Soviet Union immediately after 1917 was continuing emphasis on economic regionalisation. The State Planning Commission which was established in 1921, appointed a special commission on regionalisation which was authorised to recommend a national plan for the division of the national territory into functional units.
The commission formulated the concept of the economic region in 1922- ‘A region should be a distinctive territory that would be economically as integrated as possible, and, thanks to a combination of natural characteristics, cultural accumulation of the past, and population trained for productive activity, would represent one of the links in the entire chain of the national economy. This principle of economic integration makes it possible to construct further, on the basis of a properly selected complex of local resources, capital assets brought in from outside, new technology, and the national plan of economic development, a regional development plan that would make optimal use of all possibilities at minimal cost. This will also help achieve other important results viz., the regions will specialise to a certain extent in those activities that can be developed most fully in them, and exchange between regions will be limited to a strictly essential amount of purposefully directed goods’.
‘Regionalization will thus help establish a close link between natural resources, working skills of the population, and assets accumulated by previous cultures and new technology, and yield an optimal productive combination by insuring a decision of labor among regions and, at the same time, organizing each region as a major economic system, thus evidently insuring optimal results’.
The State Planning Commission divided the Soviet Union into 21 such regions and then proceeded for a detailed study of each of them. L. L. Nikitin, a distinguished geographer, attempted to formulate generalisations by combining older data with latest information regarding natural resources, physical condition, population and types of economy for each of the 21 regions.
The concept of economic region vis-a-vis the productive activity also motivated a group of geographers not directly related to the State Planning Commission, to think on problems of industrial location and resource development. The plans for the organisation of inter-regional combines were the natural outcomes of such thinking.
N. N. Kolosovskiy prepared such a plan for the great Ural-Kuznetsk Industrial Combine which called for the movement of raw materials and finished goods between regions. A theoretical model for an integrated industrial region, combining basic resources with steel production and with industries using the steel was prepared in 1927 for the Dneiper Basin.
It is interesting to note that the positivist approach was very explicit in the works of geographers who were associated with the State Planning Commission, and who worked on practical problems of economic planning and sought for the formulation of explanation to real problems. University geographers were involved in the methodological and philosophical discussions whether geography should be ‘idiographic’ or ‘nomothetic’.
Baranskiy attempted to revive the Geddesian heritage of regional approach within the framework of the dialectical unity because this appeared to him the only way that Socialist geography could make a useful contribution to practical problems of economic planning. (Dialectic must not be confused as an abstract, model or theory but it is a method of analysis).
A group of Soviet geographers who attempted to revive Dokuchaiev’s tradition of geographers as ‘landscape science’ favoured a nomothetic character of geography because geographical laws, based on hypothetic-deductive method could be developed to study spatial relations of social processes arising out of the class-based inequalities. Another group of Soviet geographer led by N. N. Baranskiy insisted that Socialist geography must concentrate on the unique characteristics of spatial relation of social processes.
This methodological-philosophical debate in the 1940s and 1950s appeared to have given rise to an apparent dichotomy in the Soviet Geography, breaking the very essence of the unity of geography.
Dichotomy in the Former Soviet Geography:
The dichotomy that physical geography and economic geography are clearly differentiated branches of the discipline, with separate concept, methods and laws seemed to have ‘exposed’ the inherent inner contradictions of the Soviet Geography of the 1960s.
The argument is that laws governing the physical world are not at all the same as those governing man’s economic behaviour and, therefore, these two fields of study cannot logically, or even practically, be included in the same discipline.
Physical Geography:
Voeikev and Dokuchaiev were the two most prominent pre-revolutionary Russian geographers who advocated in favour of physical geography, that geographers should concentrate on the physical aspects of the Earth’s surface. In fact, Dokuchaiev’s ‘landscape science’ makes geography a nomothetic science, in which generalisations may be formulated to explain the physical nature of the Earth. The pre-revolutionary tradition of physical geography was carried on by I. P. Gerasimov, who was the director of the Institute of Geography at the Academy of Sciences in 1963.
Physical geography attempts to seek the laws which lie behind the observable physical features of the Earth’s surface, and that the development and testing of theories and models of universal application appear to be intrinsic to the genuineness of physical geography.
On the various specialties of physical geography and biogeography, Gerasimov pointed out that- ‘The particular physical geographic disciplines made extraordinary rapid progress throughout the Soviet period, both in the development of theory and in the formation of new approaches and research methods. Although the achievements of the particular disciplines provided the main elements of modern theory of physical geography, the formation of such generalisations was also complicated by the growing differentiation of the physical geographic disciplines, in which scholars concentrated their attention increasingly on specific components of the natural geographic environment’.
Systematic studies of climatographic analogue, soil geography glaciology, geomorphology and biogeography, accompanied with the universal and generic concepts, appeared to have given a distinct status to physical geography in the Soviet Union.
The Soviet geographers of the 1970s proposed a new model-based paradigm for physical geography. From Dokuchaiev’s ‘law of zonality’ has evolved the ‘landscape science’, which ultimately developed into a ‘model-based’ or predictive physical geography during the Soviet period.
The landscape, according to Isachenko, is a dynamic system in which matter and energy are circulating and in which there are rhythmic (seasonal) changes of heat and water balance and biological productivity. A classification of landscapes with a hierarchy of scales or degrees of generalisation prepared for the whole Soviet Union to be mapped on a scale of 1/4,090,000.
Gerasimov, the forerunner of the modern Soviet physical geography, believing in the nomothetic character of the discipline, defined a landscape as a combination of interrelated environmental components (local climate, landforms, soils, plants and animals) occupying a discrete territory.
It exists objectively in the natural environment. The landscape science appears to incorporate the general systems theory as it emphasizes on a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and their attributes.
The approach to landscape science, therefore, is to study them as an assemblage, in which the various parts may be related in an aerial and time sense. The landscape science or the modern Soviet physical geography attempts to set out to discover universals, to build and establish theoretical structures into which geographical realities of the physical Earth might be fitted.
Gerasimov insisted that the study of landscapes just for the purpose of describing them is not enough- constructive geography must use this knowledge for the effective transformation of nature.
He offers four examples of constructive geography:
1. The study of the geophysics of natural and cultural landscapes of the wooded steppe in the central chernozem zone. The purpose was to investigate the heat and water budget on the Earth’s surface in virgin land and in cultivated land and then to experiment with various technical devices for controlling natural processes and so increase agricultural productivity.
2. The study of the irrigated lands of central Asia. The purpose was to find ways to control salt accumulation, to use water more efficiently, and to increase the irrigated area. Questions investigated include the fate of the Aral Sea and what the drying up of this body of water would mean for economy of the region.
3. The study of means of reclaiming the swamps of the valley by using properly placed dams and diversion canals. The study also includes the hydroelectric potential.
4. Studies of the water in Lake Baikal for the specific purposes of reducing pollution, regulating the flow through the Angara River and finding new ways of putting this natural resource to better use.
The naturalistic-pragmatic trend appears to be explicit in the constructive geography vis-a-vis the landscape science.
Economic Geography:
The protagonists of economic geography, on the other hand, seemed to have believed in the idiographic tradition of the discipline, which is exemplified as- ‘economic geography teaching should concentrate on a large body of concrete economic geography material, systematically represented on maps. The specifics of economic geography, the location of productive forces, and economic regionalization should be of central concern to teaching personnel. Most of the content of economic geography should be taught on a regional basis’.
It was during the initial period of Soviet Geography that the dichotomy between physical geography and economic geography became more pronounced. In 1926, O. A. Konstantinov pointed out ‘We reject the possibility for economic geography to be simultaneously part of two quite different systems of science (the geographic and economic sciences). We hold that ours is not only an economic discipline, but a purely economic discipline. In other words, we are for a complete break with geography, in the sense of complete outlawing of geographic approaches’.
This very statement provided a normative character to the discipline. The Soviet economic geography sought for the empirical generalisations which could be valid for specific time and place. Spatial laws governing man’s economic behaviour are not universal and at the same time economic geography could not be a law-seeking discipline, as that of the physical geography. Empirical generalisations, prepared within the time-frame by the Soviet economic geographers, were built upon the uniqueness of economic phenomena.
Unity of Geography:
This dichotomy in the Soviet geography, that physical geography and economic geography being clearly differentiated branches with separate concepts and methods seemed to have continued for a long time until the publication of V. A. Anuchin’s book Theoretical Problems in Geography in 1960. In the words of Hooson, ‘the book set out to investigate the theoretical basis of geography as a whole, through historical and philosophical analysis’.
In the book Anuchin elaborated his ideas with the aim of demonstrating the unity of geography. He devoted considerable space to a review of the history of geographical determinism, and analysed the theory from a Marxist point of view. He realised that the influence of geographical conditions on the life of society is beyond all doubt.
It would be wrong to see in the assertion of this influence a manifestation of geographical determinism, the scientific worthlessness of the latter does not rest in the fact that it recognises the influence of the geographical factor on the development of society as a basic condition of this development, but in the fact that this influence was elevated to the position of a basic principle of development.
He saw the main fault of geographical determinism as lying in its mechanical nature. The environmentalists saw certain prime influences as producing certain consequences, whereas, in fact, the problem of cause and effect is a very complex one.
It is this mechanical aspect of determinism (according to Anuchin) which Marxism rejects and not determinism in the broader sense of the word. On the basis of this assertion, Anuchin ruled out the dichotomy in the Soviet Geography. He attacked both an ‘inhuman’ physical geography and an ‘unnatural’ economic geography.
In fact, the movement for the unity in geography was initiated by N. N. Baranskiy in the 1920s when Stalin’s policy of strong centralised control of the economy made the study of regional synthesis less relevant and seemed to negate the whole idea of an economic region ‘as a major territorial production complex with a specialization of national significance’.
Baranskiy successfully managed to build up within the Marxist framework a strong case for a more realistic approach to the natural environment by Soviet geographers. He also demonstrated a very positive approach to the geographical environment vis-a-vis the unity in geography.
In the 1930s, the number of geographers who believed in the Baranskiy-led movement for ‘the unity in geography vis-a-vis the idiographic tradition in geography’, increased rapidly so as to give a legitimate and professional recognition to it. In 1934, two decrees gave official recognition to the professional support that had been given to Baranskiy.
Though Baranskiy carried forward the movement for the unity in geography, but his belief in the unity seemed to be somewhat inclined towards economic geography, and implicit in his belief was some form of a dichotomy. He himself organised several seminars on economic geography and in one of the seminars, a discussion on the economic geography of the USA was held, in which several specialists were trained on this subject.
In spite of this, Baranskiy is credited with the movement for the unity in geography, and his idea was carried a stage further by V. Anuchin. He successfully challenged those who believed in the dichotomy. Later, Anuchin, for his methodological and philosophical stand on the unity of geography, had the full support of Baranskiy and Saushkin.
Commenting on Anuchin’s book, Baranskiy (1960, 107) pointed out- ‘Anuchin comes out, on the one hand, against geographical determinism and on the other hand against a nihilistic underestimation of the environment, which he aptly calls geographical indeterminism. The geographical environment in itself does not determine the historical process of social production, but in a number of cases it exerts, in intermediary form, a decisive influence on the development of the economy’.
Saushkin had, for some years before Anuchin’s first methodological article appeared, been a supporter of a unified geography and of a more realistic appraisal of the role of the natural environment in economic geography. Saushkin’s book Introduction to Economic Geography (1958) revealed his thinking on the major issues of methodological and philosophical aspects as being very close to those of Baranskiy and Anuchin.
Geographical Synthesis:
The view that geography is a synthesising subject has always been basic to the philosophy of the discipline. A belief in synthesis has been the teleology of geography, the purpose that justified the activities of geographers.
The critical geography in the Soviet Union has not, in fact, abandoned the idea of synthesis which is exemplified in this statement of Anuchin- ‘It becomes self-evident that production can only fully develop when it is based on geographical forecasting. Man’s means of influencing nature have so increased that their application cannot continue without a study of their possible consequences. Geography, however, has not shown itself ready to solve this problem…. For this purpose one must have synthetic general geographical studies, the results of which would provide practical forecasts of the consequences of interference with natural processes, which inevitably are taking place. It is necessary to have a science concerned with the utilization of nature, a science which will connect natural science with the group of social sciences—what is needed is geography without adjectives’.
Anuchin is largely repeating the old view that geography must be a synthetic science. What is interesting is the justification for the Soviet geographer in asserting that geography can only add something useful to research in the future if it can make the geographical synthesis work.
Anuchin further stated that ‘the society requires synthesis at different geographical levels. The synthesis needed, especially in economic planning, provides a basis for the development of the discipline and possibilities for new jobs for geographers, other than those employed by Universities.
James and Martin point out that ‘1970s is the beginning of a period of synthesis and unity’, but they foresaw a return of the tendency of split before the year 2000. It seems that geographers are brought together because of their concern with the geographical landscape and with specific segments of the Earth’s space. The processes going on in a landscape are interconnected spatial systems, and the study of them separately is not the same as the study of them as systems.
In the study of the economy, there is need for the full consideration of physical factors and there is also a need for the study of the changes in the landscape resulting from human action, whether planned or unplanned. The basis of physical geography is landscape science. The general and the particular complement and attempt to enrich each other. Especially in the field study does the essential unity of the geographical approach become apparent.
Contemporary Trends:
Soviet geographers made significant contribution to urban geography. Though Baranskiy (I960) felt the need to develop a method of classifying cities very much on the line adopted by American geographers, but it was not until the 1960s that the Soviet geographers showed interest in urban studies. O. A. Konstantinov is credited with having played a leading role in defining the methodology and philosophy of Soviet urban geography.
C. D. Harris, who reviewed the works of the Soviet geographers on urban studies, reported that the Soviet urban geography, during the 1960s, became highly ‘model-based’ as it involved the application of sophisticated quantitative techniques, followed by the development and testing of theories and models through hypothetic-deductive methods.
Soviet geographers developed model-based paradigms to be adopted in the study of the management of natural resources. They showed considerable interest in the concept of territorial industrial complexes to further their thinking on national planning.
An ecological point of view seems to have emerged in the Soviet Union in the 1970s that justifies the ecological paradigm not by empiricism, but on methodological grounds on the creation of a framework of concepts. Soviet geographers devoted more time to environmental and regional problems, and by referring to Anuchin’s model, they attempted to demonstrate the practical value of an integrated geographical approach in their solution.
One of the contemporary trends is to emphasise the study of the theoretical foundation of recreational geography, known as constructive research. The constructive research requires to be based on a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental laws underlying the organisation and functioning of natural system. It is a model- based geography applied to the practical purposes of building the socialist economy within the framework of Marxist-Leninist tradition.