The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: VPugazhenthi Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_Q Date:31/
3/09 Time:19:14:09 Filepath:H:/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-9781405132879/appln/
3B2/revises/9781405132879_4_Q.3d

geometry viatransportation studies came

networksand graph theory. And from the

philosophy and history ofsciencecame a

model of ‘the structure of scientific revolu-

tions’ (seeparadigm) that could be used, rhet-

orically at least, to legitimize the quantitative

revolution as a genuinely scientific revolution.

In the process the dominant stream of research

in human geography moved from a field-

based, craft-form of enquiry to a technical,

desk-bound one, where places were analysed

from afar.

Peter Gould (1978), one of the revolution-

aries, labelled the era of the quantitative revo-

lution, ‘The Augean period’, after the mythic

Augean stables that – after thirty years of neg-

lect – were cleaned all of a piece by Hercules.

Equating quantitative revolutionaries with

Hercules and an earlier non-quantitative geog-

raphy with the Augean stables speaks to at

least two sociological processes marking the

revolution. (1) The heroic depiction points to

the quantitative revolution’s profoundmascu-

linism(and, arguably, to itswhitenesstoo).

Initial proponents and expositors were all

men; there were virtually no substantive stud-

ies of women; and the disembodied, totalizing

knowledge produced was phallocentric (see

phallocentrism: see also situated know-

ledge). (2) The cleansingmetaphorindicates

how desperately keen revolutionaries were to

quarantine themselves from the past. Partly

this was intellectual, but, as Taylor (1976)

argues, it was also for internal sociological

reasons. To move ahead, to secure early pro-

motion and status, it was necessary to do

something different. For a group of very

bright, young, ambitious and competitive

male scholars, the quantitative revolution was

the perfect vehicle.

At some point in the late 1960s, or early

1970s, the grip of the quantitative revolution

on the discipline loosened. There are at least

two reasons. First, a different kind of world

was emerging that was more restless, and less

innocent than before. Great debates were hap-

pening around issues ofpoverty, civilrights,

the environment,genderand racial equality,

and war, but the quantitative revolution

seemed unable or unwilling to address them.

The ensuingrelevancedebate of the early

1970s left quantifiers flat-footed. As Harvey

(1973, p. 129) damningly put it, ‘There is an

ecological problem, an urban problem, an

international trade problem, and yet we seem

incapable of saying anything of depth or pro-

fundity about any of them. When we do say

something, it appears trite and slightly ludi-

crous. In short, our paradigm is not coping

well. It is ripe for overthrow.’ Second, an aca-

demic generation had passed since the first

quantifiers, and the time was ripe for change.

A new vocabulary was forged to mark off the

old from the new, in this case, one principally

derived frommarxism(Harvey, 1973). There

were other, immediate contenders too, includ-

ing ahumanistic geographythat sought to

develop human geography’s connections with

thehumanitiesrather than the social sciences.

But the important point, and why the quanti-

tative revolution remains a watershed in geo-

graphy’s recent history, is that Marxism and its

successor projects persisted with a theoretical

vocabulary. (It is as well to remember that the

humanities are every bit as ‘theoretical’ in their

sensibility as the social sciences.) Certainly the

meaning oftheoryaltered, as many different

avenues were explored, but the continuity of a

theoretical vocabulary has proven more im-

portant in subsequently shaping the discipline

than rupture. tb

Suggested reading

Barnes (2004).

queer theory A panoply of always-question-

ing and destabilizing theoretical and intellec-

tual movements that centre on the significance

and complexities of sexualities and genders. It

emerged in the 1990s (see de Lauretis, 1991)

within the humanities, but has travelled into

the social sciences, and so intohuman geo-

graphy. By its very nature, the term resists

being pinned down or essentialized. Above

all, queer theory draws on both senses of the

term ‘queer’. It refers both to an array of non-

normative sexualities and/or desires (lesbian/

gay/bisexual/pansexual/asexual/transsexual/

transgendered (seepsychoanalytic the-

ory), and invokes the sense of challenging

norms of sexuality by referencing the curi-

ous, odd or strange (de Lauretis, 1991;

Jagose, 1996).

Two uses of the term are apparent. First,

queer theory is used loosely to describe any

theoretically inflected work in gay and lesbian

studies. Using the term in such a way frus-

trates queer theorists who valorize the per-

spective’s unabashedly and relentless push to

critique. Second, and more precisely, as an

instance of post-structuralism andpost-

modernism, queer theoryepistemologically

challenges the ubiquity ofheteronormativity

(see homophobia and heterosexism). It

perpetually and relentlessly destabilizes our

quotidian ideas by rejecting any fixed or stable

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_Q Final Proof page 612 31.3.2009 7:14pm Compositor Name: ARaju

QUEER THEORY