The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: VPugazhenthi Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_S Date:1/4/
09 Time:15:23:40 Filepath:H:/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-9781405132879/appln/3B2/
revises/9781405132879_4_S.3d

assessed by reference to independently gath-

ered observations (Harvey, 1969).

In human geography,thisapproachwas

used to develop theories of the location of

human activities, the spatial interactions

between places and the spatialdiffusionof

phenomena from one place to another.

Typically, research proceeded by constructing

mathematical–statistical models and then

comparing them to observations using spatial

analysis (spatial statistics and Monte Carlo

simulation). While some spatial science suffers

fromspatial fetishismandspatial separat-

ism, these are by no means inherent shortcom-

ings. Both thesocial constructionof space

and thetheory-laden nature of observations

were recognized within spatial science.

Given this history, it is ironic that the term

‘spatial science’ first appeared in English in

Hartshorne’s programmatic statement ofThe

nature of geography(1939). This text was the

beˆte noireofspatial science: Hartshorne dis-

cussedlocation theoryen passantbut ruled

it out of geographical enquiry, and he located

geography alongside what he called other

‘spatial sciences’, such as astronomy (cf.

cosmography), only to insist that the intrinsic

exceptionalism of geography necessarily

relocated it with the idiographic sensibilities

of history rather than the theoretical and stat-

istical modalities of the other, normal sciences.

When the term ‘spatial science’ reappeared, it

was not part of the rival prospectus of the

quantitative revolutionaries at all but, rather,

named their research as the object of critique:

thus the second chapter of Gregory’sIdeology,

science and human geography (1978a) was

entitled ‘In place of spatial science’.

Since then, spatial science has become a

catch-all characterization of forms of spatial

analysis and theorization associated with the

Quantitative Revolution and its derivatives. At

its most general, it describes a divide within

human geography and also between human

andphysical geographythat separates those

who see themselves as following the prescrip-

tions of natural science from those who do

not. Since the 1990s, as GIS has reinvigorated

spatial analysis and as cognate social sciences

such as economics, with stronger allegiances

to the epistemologies of natural science, have

rediscovered geography (seenew economic

geography), spatial science has gained new

adherents. Yet the divide is based on the supp-

osition that natural science entails different

norms than the human sciences – a claim that

has been increasingly questioned in contem-

porary geography, philosophy and the

philosophy ofscience and science studies

(cf. Harrison and Dunham, 1998; Massey,

1999). es

spatial separatism Any geographical theory

asserting that physicalspaceis an independent

cause of human behaviour. Separatism has two

meanings here: separating space from social

processes, and separatinghuman geography

from other social sciences. The term was

coined by Sack (1973, 1974b) to criticize

claims made specifically by Bunge (1966,

1973) in his prospectus for theoretical geog-

raphy that geographical theories explain using

geometric laws, thereby giving geography an

exceptional status relative to the laws of other

social sciences. Sack, like critics ofspatial

fetishism, argued that space is relational – an

emergent outcome of social processes – and

that this made such separatism untenable. es

Suggested reading

Sack (1974b).

spatial structure The organization of social

and biophysical phenomena in space. The term

was coined withinspatial scienceto refer to

the spatial coherence, geometric order or sys-

tematic spatial pattern (particularly spatial

equilibria) generated by human activities. It

implied an order in geometrical–mathemat-

ical–statistical domains characterized by

degrees of symmetry, regularity and predict-

ability. The term was subsequently used in a

less restrictive, less formalist sense inhuman

geographyand insocial theoryto refer to

the interdependence of human agency and spa-

tial structures, whereby agency responds to but

also reproduces and transforms its spatial tem-

plates (cf. Gregory and Urry, 1985). The term

is now used more eclectically still, to refer to

any more or less ordered spatial arrangement,

assemblageor system: the orderings through

which space is implicated in the operation and

outcome of social and biophysical processes.

The emphasis on ‘ordering’ rather than ‘order’

directs attention to the ‘folding’ oftimeand

spaceinto the operation of processes in contin-

gent, fluid and sensuous ways. This recognizes

that practices and performances evade and

exceed the symmetrical and/or logical orders

proposed by classical social theory (hence its

‘problem of order’) and by neo-classical spatial

science, and requires ‘order’ or ‘structure’ to be

treated as aprocessrather than a thing.es/dg

spatiality The mode(s) in whichspaceis

implicated in the constitution and conduct of

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_S Final Proof page 715 1.4.2009 3:23pm

SPATIALITY