The development of radical geography

in the United States

by Richard Peet

This essay recounts the main in the recent development of a radical

events
movement geography (largely the United States, the area I am most
in in
familiar with), indicates some of the currents of theoretical emphasis within
radical geography, and sets the movement into the context of the material
events which originally stimulated its growth and have subscqucntly provoked
change. Two assumptions arc implicit in my argumcnt: first, and most obvi-
ously, that there is no such thing as objective, valuc-frce and politically neutral
science, indeed all science, and especially social science, serves some political
purpose; second, that it is the function of convcntional, established science
to serve the established, conventional social system and, in fact, to enable it
to survive. Science does this in two main ways: by providing partial, within-

the-system ’solutions’ to problems thrown up by capitalism’s erupting con-

tradictions ; and by ’explaining away’ unsolvablc problems, blaming victim
groups or special circumstances of the time, or othcrwisc divcrting attention
from inherent systemic contradiction. As societal problems deepen, and their
solution becomes increasingly impossible, the second more obviously ideologi-
cal function assumes greater importance. Scientists play a leading role in laying
down ideological strata which disguise the causal processes underlying societal
problems. They provide the ’scientific underpinnings’ of a cultural climate
which makes decent people able to function complacently while the economic
and social system falls apart around them.
Radical science, and radical geography within it, aims at exposing tliis’falsc
culture’ for what it is-a device for the protection of the social and economic
system against the rise of revolutionary consciousness among its own people.
Radical science strips away divcrsions, exposes existing explanations to criti-
cism, provides alternative explanations which trace the relationship between
‘social problems’ at the surface and deep societal causes, and encourages people
to engage in their own theory construction. On the foundation of the resulting
alternative explanations, a radical political programmc for restructuring
society is erected, while around this programmc develops a culture which
reflects the experience and the w-ishes ofa re-amahened people. Radical science
is thus the conscious agent of revolutionary political change. And radical
geography is one part of it, sharing the same aims, using thc same methods.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 24I

but specializing in a certain sct of the relationships from which society is

made.
Radical science in general and radical geography in particular arc, at least
in North America, of fairly recent origin.They arc largely the product of the
events of the ig60s ; it is with the events of that decade that we should begin
our analysis.

I General reactions to contradiction in the iggos

The 19(’ )os was a momentous decade for the development, or re-dcvelopment,
of political radicalism in the United States. It was a time of mass demonstra-
tions against government policies; uprisings in the cities; the resurgence of
previously defunct socialist parties; and, within academic science, a decade
in which vigorous radical movcmcnts sprang up in virtually cvcry ficld. Obvi-
ously something must have happened to shake people out of their previous
political complacency; what were the key events to which wc were reacting?
In the United States, the main political events of the i 96os were, undoubtedly,
the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. Both resulted from the
maturing state of contradiction into which capitalism was moving. The first
stemmed from capitalism’s inherent tendency to produce social inequality and
social strife (revealed in the US case as racial inequality and interracial strife);
the second stemmed from late capitalism’s dependence on imperialistic domi-
nation and exploitation for its continued functioning and the inevitable re-
action (in the form ofliberation struggles) against this domination in the Third
World. Why both contradictions surfaced almost simultaneously as a sequence
of sharpened political events is far more diflicult to explain and beyond the
scope of this essay. We can say, however, that bare patches had long hecn
showing in the ideological ’explanations’ of inequality and racism and
that this contributed a hcalthy dosc of popular scepticism when the state
tried to disguise the Victnam War as ’necessary for the protection of free-
dom’ (an explanation which had workcd well enough during the Korean
For the purposes of this essay it IS necessary to analyse the US reaction
to the war in Vietnam, to point out the consequences in terms of political

radicalization, and show how radicalization in the sciences, and in geo-

to
graphy in particular, part of this more general reaction.
was
Resistance to the war had three types, or levels, of effect on the political
consciousness of those involved. For the majority of people opposed to
United States involvement merely because it was lasting too long, or costing too
much, the war had little political effcct. For a second, smaller group opposed
to the war on moral grounds, the experience led to a questioning of the
values inherent in US involvement, to dissatisfaction with the direction in
which society was moving, and to liberal-reform politics which culminated
in the llcGovcrn presidential campaign of 1972. For a third group US involve-
mcnt was either further proof, or the final convincing element in proving, that
the USA was the leading imperialist power, world capitalism’s military guard-

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

242

ian against an insurgent socialism. For this last group opposition to the war
became but one part of a more general, revolutionary political movement
aimed evcntually at the substitution of socialism for capitalism in the United
States. At the beginning of mass opposition to the war the revolutionaries
numbcrcd no more than a few thousand people. During and after the war,
individuals and small groups ofpcoplc broke off the issue-oriented liberal cam-
paigns (anti-war, environment, appropriate technology, tvomcn’s liberation,
consumers, etc.) and moved towards deeper, more philosophical, radical
politics. By the mid-1 §70s, revolutionary theory and action groups had become
quite common in the universities and in certain tenants’, minority and urrion
movcmcnts, and support had grown to several hundred thousand people.
The process of ‘brcaking off from liberalism was an extremely important
aspect of the wartime and post-Vietnam 1B’ar radicalization process in politics
in general, but also in the simultancously dcv-cloping radical movements ill
US science. ‘I3rcaking off involved, csscntially, a shift from one politico-scien-
tific paradigm to another. The starting point was the liberal political and social
scientific paradigm, based on the belief that societal problems can be solvcd,
or at least significandy ameliorated, within the context of a modified capital-
ism. A corollary of this bclicf is the advocacy of pragmatism-better to be
involved in partial solutions than in futile efforts at revolution. Radicalization
in the political arena involvcd, as its first step, rejecting the point of view that
one more policy change, one more ’new face’, would make any difference.
Radicalization in the social sciences involved a similar first step of rejecting
the notion that another squeeze of old theory, the grafting-on of yet anothcr
fragment of theory, or a dose of new mcthodology, would lead to dramatic
changes in the insights or results obtained. In both the gcrtcral political, and
the more particular academic case, systemic contradictions revealed them-
sclves in problems so deep and widesprcad as to put into serious question sup-
port of the current (policj’ or thcoretical~ efforts made to contain them. The
general state of societal contradiction generated a sequence of more particular
contradictions in the branches of scientific theory, which in turn set off con-
tradictions in the intellectual efforts of those individual immersed in, and act-
ing on k}eltalf of, those theories. The result, for thosc people able and willing
to recognize it, was a state of personal crisis, disenchantment, and disillu-
sionment with the existing political and scientific paradigms, a breaking-off
from lik~cralism and thus a state of potential radicalization.
But this experience did not automatically lead to an involvement in social-
ism, nor even a search for a deeper, more intcllcctually- and cmotionally satisfy-
ing bodyof theory. In the United States of tlie 960s and 19ïoS a numher
of conditions prevailed which made the achicvcmcnt of a positivc radicalism
extremely diflicult. For one thing, tlrc socialist tradition, quite strong in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, had been all but destroyed by
state action and the prcvalencc of an apparcnt afllucncc which made the more
obvious aspects of socialism seem inapplicable. This same material affluence
was uscd to buy off acadcmics-that is, to involve them in research projects

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 243

which were pointless, by comparison with the rate at which social and environ-
mental problems were being formed, but which provided them, and their de-
pendent graduate students, with money, status and power. Finally, and most
important, it was necessary for potential radicals to explode their way through
the thick layers of ideology which in the most dangerous, mass-suicidal way,
protect late capitalism. One aspect of this ideological climate is the provision
of diversionary ’movements.’, of a consumer, religious or pseudo-political
nature, which arc especially effective in the absence of a strong, counteracting
socialist tradition. t111 this is to say that whilc the foundation of objective
conditions for the growth of radicalism was laid, and while there were highly
visihle signs of a suitable subjective reaction to these conditions, the develop-
ment of radicalism in the United States as a whole, in thc universities, and
in the particular field of geography, has been a long, difficult process. Those
who have become involved in the radical movcmcnt havc had to begin to
rc-cducatc themselves in the most fundamental way-that is to subject them-
sclvcs to a process of devastating self-criticism and to attempt to restructure
their minds, their personalities, their ways of rclating to other people and to
the external world. This has prevented many people from reaching a stage
of revolutionary consciousness, has retarded the growth of a truly radical
movement, and has even led to many diversions Zf’t~~ttlt the radical movement.
And yct it has also made Urlltcd States radicalism unique in certain respects,
making it humanistic and non-dogmatic compared with its European counter-
parts.

II The radicalizing process in geography

What was, in general, a complex political situation was made even more com-
plicated by the particular history of academic geography. In the nineteenth
and early twentieth ccr~turics geography, as a science of exploration and
resource inventory, was cxtremely important in the expanding, imperialistic
countries. But, as the focus of thc capitalist systcm’s needs changcd from gco-
graphic exploration to an internal expansion of the frontiers of psycho-cultural
domination (of already-discovcrcd people), geography lost prominence to the
more obviously social and psychological sciences. This increasingly lfackwatcr
status did not generate a desire to change the disciplinc; rather the old prcoccu-

pations continued in various new guises, and the mood of the discipline gradu-
ally collapsed into a crotchety eclecticism, especially in the United States
where gcography had scarcely been established before changing conditions
undc:rcut its development. Then in the late 1950s in the United States, some-
what later clsewhcrc, spatial theory and scientific methods wcrc combined into
the ’new geography’ under the influence of society’s needs for spatial cfticieticy
and regional planning. Geographers responded to the call for spatial dccision-
makers like old soldicrs returning to a long-lost army. Geography was again
a functioning science.
Yet this very functionalism became a source of radicalization for certain

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

244

geographers. Many young academics moved rcadily into the well-hceled ranks
of ‘the quantifiers’. But other young geographers, propelled into a heightened
state of social awareness by the events of thc middle ig6os, noticed that thc
fine new methodology was being used only to analyse such socially ephemeral
matters as shopping behaviour and the location of service centres (Peet, rg72;
Smith, 1972). Out of the tension between the mundane focal interests of the
’new geography’ and the urgent need for social relevance and political invofve-
mcnt came the first stumbling moves towards a ’radical’ geography.

i In search of a radical perspectire

It is relatively easy to realize that ’something is wrong’ with an academic disci-
pline. Such a realization is forced on even the passive observer by the march
of events, and remarks that ’some kind of change is needed’ arc commonplace
in journals and at academic meetings. Realizing what that ’something’ is or,
rather, tracing a whole series of , some things’ to their common origin, is far
more difficult: a wide channel ofducstioning and doubt scparatc the t%%-o stages
of consciousness.
This channel was particularly difficult to cross in gcography. In the morc
obviously functional social sciences students, as part of their usual training,
had to be inculcated with the ’philosophy’ of their science as revealed by its
established practitioners; of course, this philosophy did not usually include the
critical insights ofmarxism. But what students received did give them a ccrtain
awareness of, and ability to handle, political-philosophical questions. By con-
trast the relative non-functionalism of geography dictated that young geo-
graphers were rrol trained in the techniques of philosophical inquiry, perhaps
for fcar of what they might find about the nature of their discipline, and the
idca of a critical, fi’larx-based geography was (and still is) utterly beyond the
comprehension of the leading scholars of the field. So we, incipiently radical
geographers, arrived at the side of the philosophical sea with handkerchiefs
on our heads and our pants rolled up ready to paddle, when what we needed
was the arduous training of the cross-channel swimmer. It took several years
for even the beginnings of a new philosophy to develop.
We can trace the development of a critical comprehension in the pages of
Antipode, where most of the published discussion of radical geography has
appeared. Antipode was founded as a journal of radical geography by a group
of faculty and students at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, in
rg6g. As expressed by the editor in the first issue, the aim of the journal was
’to ask value questions within geography, question existing institutions con-
cerning their rates and qualities of change, and question the individual con-
cerning his own commitments’ (~1’isner, ig6g, iii). 11’hat emerged from the
practice of radical geography was an interest in two types of issue: among
academically oriented geographers an effort to change the focus of the disci-
pline, from what were seen as eclectic irrelevancies, to the study of urgent
social problems; among action-oriented geographers, the search for organ-
izational models for promoting social change. Let us discuss each in turn.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 245

a ’Social relez~ancy’: By the middle to late 196os two strcams of thought domi-
nated human gcography: an old school, using traditional descriptive methods,
concerned itself with an esoteric variety of regional, environmental and eco-
nomic questions-the particular topic of inquiry depending more on quirk
of interest or convenience (’The goldfish industry of ~IartinsB’iUe, Indiana’,
etc.) than the urgency of the problem; and the ’new geography’, based
in location theory and using quantitative methods, but either focused on non-
vital issues (like the distribution ofccntral places) or obviously w-cddcd to in-
dtlstrial and commercial interests (the ’optimal’ location of industry, super-
market location, etc.). Rivalry· between the two groups, fear on the one side,
disdain on the other, and competition within the lattcr group (keeping up
with the latest technique), kept the field of geography in a perpetual state
of’dynamism’ (Hurst, 1973). And then the central cities of the United States
erupted and all over the world massivc anti-war marchcs began. The battle
cry became ’rclevancy’-which meant changing the topical focus of the disci-
pliiie yct retaining the existing research methodology. From ig67 onwards
meetings were held at Association of American Geographers’ conventions urg-
ing a more relevant geography (similar meetings were held by the Institute
of British Geographers) and from the middle sixties papers began to
appear in thc journals dealing with the obviously geographic aspects of social
issucs-in particular the location and expansion of the black ghetto in North
American cities (inlorrill, t966; All>aum, 1973),
‘Radical’ geography was the left-liberal wing of this movement. Early· issues
of Antipode dealt with urban and regional poverty, minority groups, access to
social services and similar questions. However, in common with the ’new geo-
graphy’, radicals investigated only the surface aspects of these questions-that
is, how social problems were manifested in space. For this, either w-c found
the conventional methodology adequate enough or we proposcd only that
’existing methods of research must be modified to some extent if they are to
serve the analytic and rcconstructive purposes of radical applications’
...

(~1’isner, 1970, 1 ). The result was a geography more relcvant to social issues
but still tied to a philosophy of science, a set of theories, and a mcthodology
developed lvithill the existing framework of power relationships. There was,
for example, little difference between the pages of early issues of Antipode and
a report on a symposium on ’Geographical Perspectives and Urban Problems’

organized by the Committee on Geography of the National Academy of

Sciences, except that the latter bore the obvious trappings of wealth and power
(rg~g). A further indication of cooptation was the immediate, enormous in-
crease in sales ofAntipode soon after the journal was established. This was taken,

by the people involved in publishing Antipode, to mean that wc were changing

people’s minds; wc should havc realized that wc were fitting into an established
market, that we were amenable to established ways of thinking, that w-c were
uscful in providing background ideas for the formulation of’pragmatic’ public
’

policy directions, and so could not, and w ere not, engaging in radical analysis
and practice.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

246
There were a couple of exceptions to this tendency of morc-or-less fitting
into the existing politics of the disciplinc. (The work of a third, exceptional
radical geographer-Kcith Buchanon (I 9ï’2; ’()75)-,.%-as little known in the
United Statcs until about 1972.) On thc one hand we find I3laut consistency
writing on imperialism from a critical point of vicw, saying for example that
‘11’cstcrn science, like Western history, has been mcthodologically incapable
of controlling its own tendency to interpret the Third Wortd in terms of the
paradigms of ~1’cstcrn ethno-sciencc and the interests of impcrialism’ (1970;
m~~;;), and building the framework of a Third 11’orld model of impcrialism.
Probabty because of his experience in thc Third World, I3laut was ahlc to scc
the functional relationship between power interests and theory development,
which was more than most ’radical’ geographers could see at the time. His
point was, however, obscured by the very general terms of his ethno-scientific
explanation which tended to hide the more dangerous fact that theory is de-
veloped on behalf of a certain (ruling) class within any ethnic group. Yet, as
Folke (1973, rg) later pointed out, Blaut’s model of imperialism was ’at least
thrcc-quartcr(s) marxist and mould only have gained by becoming so a
hundred percent’. In other words, Blaut was circling around a radical-tflcorctic
perspective, even attempting to incorporate aspects of the marxian viewpoint
into his theory, yet not quite penetrating through to a coherent, radical scien-
tific analysis.
On the other hand, we find Harvey (1972a) developing the concept of ‘terri-
torial social justice’ as the basis of a theory of spatial allocation which would
serve as an altcrnativc to location theory erected on the foundation of mavimiz-

ing ’efficicncy’. In Harvey·’s paper we can see an carty recognition of the rlced
to escape from the net of assumptions inherent in the existing theories. Yet,
as he later recognized (1973, 14), separating social justice from the context

of material events and interests which give meaning to the concept, and pro-
posing social justicc as something desirable according to an arbitrarily dccidcd-
upon morality, was not a very solid way of beginning alternative theory. In-
deed, like all theories built on w-cak foundations, Harvey’s paper on social
justice contained its own contradiction-a reference to the marxian attack on
separating the question of thc distribution of the social product from an analy-
sis of the mechanisms ofsocial production (Harvey, 1972a, 97). We shall see
later how this contradiction workcd its way out in Harvey’s subsequent work.

b ’Expeditions’ and ’advocacy’: A discipline involved in a libcral analysis of

societv’s problems obviously needs ways in which it can intervene in the social
and political process, and especially ways in which it can affect the existing
structure of ameliorative government programmes. Academic people new ly
involved in social problem analysis needed intervention methods which would
allow immediate action and would yield observable ’results’.
So it was in the early days of radical geography. In 1968 11’illiam Bunge
founded the Society for Human Exploration calling for the rediscovery of the
long-forgotten skill of exploration and its use for new purposes. In a ty·pical

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 247

passage Bunge argued that ’the tyranny of fact compels that geographers’ go
into a state ofrationally controlled frcnzy about the exploration of the human
condition’ (1969,3). Geographers should form expeditions to the poorest and
most blighted areas of the country, contributing rather than taking resources,
planning lcith pcople rather than planningfor them, incorporating local people
rather than excluding them in an elitist way. By becoming a person of regions
of exploration the geographer would, by experience, find out what kinds of
work were needed and would then address himself to the problem. Local
people would be trained in geographic skills so that they could become part
of the solution to their problems and could continue the fight when thc expedi-
tion movcd on. Bungc’s proposal was thus a bold rcversal of the usual academic
prioritics and methods. His implementation of thc idea was even more start-
ling.
I3ullgc had been traincd University of Washington, a point of intense
at the
contradiction between the ’new gcography’, developing there more than any-
where else, and the background of socictal problems erupting in Scattlc as
much as elsewhere. White his early academic work was in thc most abstract
spatial theory, on arrival in Detroit (to teach at Waync Statc University) hc
chosc an area between a largc· institution and the expanding edge of the black
ghetto in which to livc, and involved himself in community affairs. Events
of the early and middle ig6os were then enough to thoroughly involve him,
and the students in his courses, in the civil rights movement and in applying
geography to the problems of low-income, and especially black, people. Il
ig6j, llc was refused tenure on the grounds of obscenity (swcaring during
lectures), and released from tcaching, which for him finally ’cut the essential
tic to the 11’hitc racist world and their moneyB The following ycar he began
the groundwork for an Expedition to Detroit (I3ungc, ig6g).
Thc resulting organization-the Society for Human EXploration-had
three branches: education, publications, and expeditions to oppressed areas.
The education branch consisted OfCOIIrSCS relevant to central-city Blacks (’The
regions of Detroit’, ’Xon-AngIo-America’, ’Urban planning’) offered at
Wayne State University and other southern Michigan institutions which were
subject to what was (and remains) an extremely intense Bungian influence. By
the spring of 1 g jo i coursers were offered, involving 1 o academic departments
at Michigan State University and an enrolment of 670 students (Horvath,

19i I). I3ut, soon after, such expeditionary principlcs as community control,
free tuitioll, and the volunteer faculty contributing their salaries to student
tuitions came to be viewed as intolerable by the univcrsity bureaucracy; un-
acceptable conditions for the continuation of the educational experiment w-erc
imposed and, when these were rejected by the expedition, the project was
terminated.
The publication plans of the expedition originally included a proposal for
The Joufllal of Human Evploralloti and several miscellaneous projects such as
an :Illa.s n~l.nre and Hate, but these did not materialize (or haB&dquo;C rlot appeared

as yct). Thc Detroit Expedition did, however, publish the results of research

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

248
and planning carried out on behalf of community groups. In response to a
request from a black community organization, the Detroit Geographical

Expedition (1970) prepared ’A report to the parents of Detroit on school

decentralization’. The report consisted of a plan for the reorganization of
regional school districts in Detroit using a formula which maximized the num-
ber of black children attending schools in districts where a majority of voters
had recently cast ballots for a black mayoral candidate. Each regional school
district was to elect a memberofthe central School Board; thus the plan aimed
at placing as many black children as possible ’under sympathetic authority’.
The Detroit Expedition’s plan was adopted by a number of locat black organ-
izations, such as the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, and was used
in an advocacy context to counter a plan drawn up by the Detroit Board of
Education. Similarly a report prepared for the Trumbull (Detroit) Com-
munity Center was used successfully to counter a plan for expansion by Wayne
State University (Detroit Geographical Expedition, Ig72; Pcct, 1 g74) . Nevcr-
theless by 1973 the Detroit Expedition had ceased to function, beset by prob-
lems such as the enforced mobility of its founder (to Toronto), thc usual
mobility of its student members, and refusal of tenure to certain supportive
or involved faculty members at nearby universities.
In a sense the idea of thc academic acting as an advocate for the poorest
and powerless groups in society, which was emphasized in Antipode articles
in the early I970S (C-9- Corey, 1972), was the concept of expeditions writ large.
Expeditions provided an altcrnativc source of information and planning skills
to help low-income communities bargain for power over their own affairs. Like-
wisc, advocate geographers and planners offered their professional expertise to
disenfranchised groups to help them deal with powcrful institutions and cvlcn-
tually to shift power to the presently powerless. Both were mainly involved
in short-term, reactive planning-stopping or delaying urban rencwal plans,
helping to prevent large institutions from taking inner-city land, and so on
(Ernst et al., 1974). But beyond this the problem with the advocacy idea was
that its relationship with a deeper and more all-cmbracing revolutionary
movement was always tcnuous at best, white at worst advocacy might be con-
sidered a liberal diversion of political effort. The expeditionary and advocacy
movements were still not radical geography (Brcitbart and Peet, 1974).
In summary, contradictions embedded in the capitalist system revealed
themselves in the form of erupting social and political problems in the r g6os.
Social scientists in the capitalist countries, and especially in the United States
(the epicentre of contradiction), were forced to recognize at least a state of
crisis and to change the direction of their research towards an analysis of thc
resulting social problems. Most of this research took place under thc liberal
paradigm, which tends to see problems as resulting from immediate causes
and thus proposes ameliorative programmmes which leave intact the function-
ing ofcapitalism. The lack ofa marxist tradition in US social science, especially
the absence of theoretical structures linking surface problems to deep societal
contradictions, made this tcndcncy doubiy strong. And in geography, a

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 249

remote, introspective discipline by the early rg6os, where political awareness

was at a particularly low ebb, the tendency for the forcc of material events
to produce false consciousness was especially noticcalle. In geography even
the call for more social relevancy was at first greeted with scepticism and hos-
tHity by the Old Guard of the discipline. Therefore, in this conservative, self
protcctivc little corner of scicnce, ’radical’ geography took a liberal form for
a time, with interest focused on bringing the discipline back into the forum
ofcrucial events and applying geographical skills to the immediate, practical
problems faced by oppressed groups. Thus, the first stage in the development
of radical geography was one of trial and error or, more honestly, floundering
around in search of perspective. This perspective began to come into focus
in thc early 1970s.

2 The breakthrough to marxism

Consciousness is a complex accumulation of the lessons of experience generated
by the changing context of matcrial events. ~1’hilc consciousness usually lags
behind the change of cvcnts, the surfacing of material contradictions, in the
form of a flurry of social, economic and political criscs, produces a set of sharp
personal experiences which may stimulate rapid change in the type and level
of consciousness. Thus, when the paradigm within which one has been operat-
ing is cracked apart by the continuing force of incxplicahlc events (in the
United States the continuation of the problems of the sixties with the addition
of the depression of the seventies), conditions are ripe for a rapid change in
point view. The search begins for a deeper, more general structure of
of
explanation which, at the same time, shows why the old paradigm did not
apply, and provides a new perspective enabling the gears ofintellcct to mesh
again with the dynamics of change. Differcnt individuals reach thc state of
crisis, begin rc-cvaluation, and move towards a new paradigm, at different
times and at varying speeds. Those who begin the process first hurr-y the ad-
vance of others made receptive to arguments for change by a sharcd set of

experiences.
In the breakthrough from liberal to marxist geography a leading role was
played by Harvey, who had previously written the ’bible of new (theoretical)
geography’ (rg6g), and who moved very quickly through the stage of libcral
theory, to arrive at marxism by the early loyos. In a paper in Antipode, Harve}~
(ig72b) argued that the time was ripe for a revolution in geographic thought.
’It is the emerging objective social conditions and our patent inability to cope
with them which essentially explains the necessity for a revolution in geographic
thought.’ Instead of continuing with yet another empirical invcstigation of
social conditions in the ghettos, radicals should engage in the construction of
a new
paradigm for social geographic thought through a profound critique
ofcxisting analytic constructs. Concepts and ideas, categories and relationships
should be marshalled into such a superior system of thought when judged
against the realities requiring explanation, that all opposition to that system
of thought would look ludicrous. Rcjccting idealism and phcnomcnology as

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

250

possible paths for the proposed revolutionary theory, hc argued rather that an
arca of ovcrlap between positivism, materialism and phenomenology bc used.
Thc system he suggested was marxism, which incorporated a phenornenologi-
cal basis from lBlarx’s carly writings, shared a materialist basc and an analyti-
cal method in common with positivism, yet went further than both to subject
the very basis ofcapitalist socicty to a rigorous and critical examination. Thus,
for example, the problcm of ghetto formation in North American cities could
be effectively attackcd-only at its source by the elimination of the market
mechanism as the regulator of land use! Harvey thus arrived at a definition
of revolutionary theory as one grounded in the rcality it seeks to represent,
dialectically formulated, offering real choices for future moments in the social
process, and consequently holding the prospect for creating truth rathcr than
merely finding it (19ï:.?b; m~~;;, 15 1
Predictably, Harvcy’s paper drew an immediate negative reaction from
established geographers and the reverse from left geographers who had had
previous exposure to marxism. However, its effect was greatest among in-
cipicnt radicals still at the stage of assembling ’some huge dossier on the daily
injustices to the populace of the ghetto, over which wc beat our hrcélsls, com-
miserate with each other, before rctirirlg to our fireside comforts’ (Harvey,
if)~2b, jo). And from 1972 onwards the emphasis of radical geography
changed from an attempt to engage the discipline in socially significant rc-
search to an attempt to construct a radical philosophical and theoretical base
for a socially and politically engaged discipline. This base was increasingly
found in marxian theory, which some British geographers had been rcading
in the late ig6os, and many United States geographers began reading in the
early rg jos. Thcrc were two main tendencies in the reconstruction of a
thcorctically based radical gcography:
n a critique of the existing paradigms of convcntional gcography;
b the extraction ofgcographic theory from the marxist (and, later, anarchist) ’

literature.

Let us de.¡1 with cacl in turn.

a Tlre radical critique: Radicatl geography developed in part from a ncgativc

reaction to the established disciplinc. The existing geography showed us what
not to do, and establishment geographers showed us what kind of people we
should not be. I3ut more than that, the function of a deep critique is to aid
in finding the causes ofprohlcms. Criticism shows what most needs changing;
it gives direction to positive proposals.
At its most gclicral level, the radical critique of established geography
focuses on the relationship betw een that fragment of science specializing in
spatial arrangement and man’s rclations w-ith the physical environment, and the
vast body of the remaining science. 11’e criticize two main aspects of this rela-

tionship. First, that the relationship is with a body of science whose function
is the ideological protection of a social and economic system owned and con-

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 251

trollccl by a ruling minority of its members. Second, that because of this, science
has to be fragmented and, in the particular case of geography, its rclationship
with the rest of science has to be made obscure. Thc result is a politically· safe,
isolated discipline which deals with onty a fragment of knowledge; within this
fragment, geographers try to find ‘causes’ of thc problems thcy observe in what
is the spatial distribution of thc results of far deeper social causes. In other
words, we claim that the external relations of the disciplinc create an internal
chaos! Out of these general criticisms come twin radical proposals: to make
geography more obviously a part of a holistic science (and thus to bring the
demise of this and all separate disciplines), and to make this whole science
act on bchalf of thc: construction of a social and economic system owned and
controllcd by all the people contained within it.
This very general radical critiduc has emerged from two types of more par-
ticular criticism: intermediate levcl analyse5 of the institutions of the discipline
(Hurst, rcl~;;) and whole schools of geographic thought (Slater, 19ï:), on the
’new geography’), and an extensive series of more dctailcd discussions of cer.
tain geographic theories. It would be impossible, in the space available, to
provide a complete summary of all aspects of what now amounts to scverat
hundred pages of dctailcd criticism of the established geography. I3ut we can
discuss the major issue, so fundamental that it incorporates elements of most
of the radical criticisms: the question of the ideological nature of established
geographic theory.
A convenient, brief guide to the marxian concept of ideology, and its ex-
in
pression geography, has been provided by Andcrson (rc~~3). Drawing on
Lcfcbvrc’s discussion (ig6g, chapter 3), Anderson initially defines ideologies
as ’systems of ideas which give distorted and partial accounts of reality, with

the objective, and often unintended, effcct of serving the partial interests of
a particular social group or class’. Specific idealogics arc used to justify particu-
lar interests, but more important arc those general ideologies which justify
existing structures of power by ’providing a mystifying smoke-screen of supcr-
ficial concepts’. Ideologies may in part be based in fact, may in part be critical
of the status quo, and may not serve the most obvious and more immediate
interests of the ruling class; yet despite their possible critical insights institu-
tionalized ideologies hamper a real understanding of how society functions
and how it might be changed:

With idcology so all-pcrvasivc andjumbted up with scientific concepts, it is clcarly

not cnough to declare one’s standpoint, as progressive liberals advocate. Honesty
is 110 guarantcc of objective science; indeed this approach tcnds to substitute
’honesty’ for ’objectivity’, lapsing into relativism as it retreats from the question
ofwhich of tErc various honcstly stated standpoints get closest to objcctivity (Ander-
son, 1973, 2).

Science must distinguish essence from appearance; in social science the fetishes
of capitalism demand that appearances bc demolished allowing the essence
to be seen; and this necessitates the use of scicntific methods which allonv ana-

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

252

lytical penetration to the essence of the problem. Where can w-c find such
methods? One such method is historical materialism which in Folke’s (1973,
1~) words ’is objective in the sense that it provides a corrcct understanding
of the mechanisms, contradictions, and direction of development of capitalist
society’. To summarize an extremely long and complicated argument, for
marxist geographers the combination of the materialist perspective and the
dialectical method allows the developmcnt of non-idcological theory; that is,
dialectical materialism is the philosophical basis of a truly scientific social
science.
One particularly important facet of geographical ideology is the ’fetishism
ofspacc’ under which relations between social groups, or classes, arc presented
as relations between areas. ’Abstract geometrical conceptualizations ofspatial
&dquo;form&dquo; may be artificially set against the social &dquo;content&dquo; of space, obscuring
it by negating the dialectical relations of &dquo;content&dquo; and &dquo;form&dquo;’ (rlnderson,
1973, 3). Slater (1975, 1Go-3) ascribes this ’apparent ilability of many geo-
graphers to explain the underlying processes that give risc to ... spatial forms
and patterns’ in part to an inverted methodology which makes the collection
and manipulation of huge quantitics of (spatial) data the central objective
of research, keeping the majority of’new geographers’ away from theoretical
considerations. But this is only the most obvious aspect of thc formation of
ideology in geography. Far more important is gcography’s mechanistic and
uncritical adoption of models and theories from other social sciences which
more dircctly produce ideology. Thus 1BIassey (1973, 38) points out that the

’body of knowledge which is known as industrial location theory suffers from

the same idealistic misconceptions as neoclassical economics. It is this overall
viewpoint which both determines its object and its form, and enables it to
perform a political and ideological function.’ Walker similarly criticizes the
relationship between urban rent theory and the neoclassical school, arguing
that the resulting theory results in a poverty of explanatory power and suggest-
ing the need for a new conceptual framework based on Xlarx (Walker, I D7-1-;
see also Ive, 1975 and Walker, 1975). Olsson (1974, 16) argues that the
’mathematical and ideological foundations of the Pareto model-which in-
cludes such formulations as the gravity, rank size and Clark models as special
cascs-makcs us suspect that whatever planning wc base on it will be counter-
productive ... (running) the risk of increasing those social, economic and
regional inequalities, which the planning initially was designed to decreasc’.
Doherty (1973, 4j) criticizes the geographic literature on spatial segregation
of racial groups, suggesting that the explanations offered by geographers are
derived from the ’stored orthodoxy of economics, sociology and psychology’
and that geographers have been ’unwilling or unable to detect their implicit
and explicit value judgemcnts, biases and distortions’. Further critiques of de-
velopment theory (Slater, 1973), behavioural geography (Riescr, 1973),
growth centre theory (Monstad, 1974), land-use theory (Barnbrock, 1976)
and the geography ofcrimc (Pcct, 1975a) make essentially the same point-
that the ideological nature of existing geographic theory not only biases,

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 253

but also retards, its dcvclopment. Hence wc find Pcct ([ 97.1 a, 2110) arguing
that :

Iil3craI geographers, especially those interested in crime, havc taken a position

which supports and protects the interests of the existing monopoly-capitalist state.
This position is not declared, nor is it ncccssarily the rcsult of a conscious thought
process, but it is nonetheless a stance of great significance for the direction which
the geography ofsocial prohlcms is taking. I3y not doing a radical analysis ofsocia!
problems (i.e. tracing problcms to their societal root), liberal geographers focus
attention on questions of management and control rather than solution. This type
of research diverts attention away from the fundamental issues 111C’0I~’(’d in the
causcs of crime.

And Slater after

( r cp;~, i (io), reviewing seven major weaknesses in the ’new
gcography’, concludes that:
’

...the Anglo-Saxon mainstream is idcological in the classical marxist scnsc, and

bcars within it a number of structura! weaknesses which, when taken as a whole,
inevitably lead us to Conclude that such a mainstream is not only outmoded and
inadequate but also constitutes a total barrier to any positive dcvclopmcnt in the
study of spatial structurc and organization. It must therefore hc abandoned.
The radical arguments concerning the shallowmess and weakness of contcm-
porary geographical theory and the need to construct a new, philosophical
basc for human geography have jibcd with the conclusions reached by many
liberal geographers. Geographers ofseveral different political pcrsuasions real-
ize the need for a stronger philosophical-theoretical base-sce for example the
papers in the Annals of Ilre Association of American Geographers, June r g j6
(especially, Yi Fu Tuan, 1976; Buttimcr, 1976; King, 1976). What libcrals
and radicals differ on is the source of the currcnt weakncss in gcographical
theory and thc direction which the solution to the problem will take. For
liberals a new synthesis of rearranged pieces of theory is necessary, a ’middle
course between the straits of pure positivism and scientific socialism’ (King,

1976, 306); for radicals an entirely new- structure of philosophy and theory.
In keeping with the liberal pursuit of a ’middle course’, there has been some
tendency for liberal geographers to borrow pieces of marxian theory for syn-
thesis with other ideas, without accepting the philosophical context in which
i%larx’s theory is embedded. This has brought sharp criticism from marxist
gcographcrs--for example Slater’s (1976) scathing attack on Portcr and dc
Souza (rg~~). But this is a mere skirmish. The battle between radical theor-
ists, drawing essentially on iBlarx, Engels, Lenin and Kropotkin, and orthodox
geography, buttressed by ’humanism’, ’phenomenology’ or, more probably,
’idealist dialectics’, has scarcely begun.

b Radicalgeographic lfieory: Xlany radical geographers began the serious study

of iBlarx in 1972 and from late 1973 or rg~4 radical gcography has become
increasingly synonymous with marxist geography. What is marxist geography,
and what is its relationship with the main body of marxist science?

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

254

~Iarxist science begins with a material analysis ofsocicty’, proceeds through

a critique of capitalistcontrol of the material base of society, and proposes
solutions in terms ofsocial owncrship ofthat matcrial (economic) base. Marxist
science rests on the foundation of its assumptions about the importance of
material production in the social formation. These assumptions provide a com-
mon structure to all aspects ofmarxist science, wclding together what other-
wise would be disparate strands of inquiry; while, in addition, thcn political
objectives ofmarxism provide common scicntific purpose. As a holistic, revolu-
tionary science, marxism provides a firm theoretical base for the radical move-
ment in geography.
’BIarxist geography is that part ofa whore science dealing w ith thc intcrrcla-
tionship between social processes on the one hand and the natural environment
and spatial relations on the other hand. Marxist geography accepts the tcnct
that social processes deal csscntially with the production and rcproduction of
the material basis of lifc. These processes occur in certain environments com-
posed of elements of the natural world and various types of relationships across
space. Different processes occur in different places imparting characteristics
to those placcs-for example, different modes of production generate economic
and social landscapes that are grcatly different. Also the same process operates
somewhat differently under differing environmental circumstanccs-for
example, thc socialist mode of production is yielding differcrlt landscape forms
within and between socialist countries. These geographic variations give a
strong spatial wcight to social process, so much so that we can spcak of spatial
processes. These arc originallv social processes whose spatial manifestations
havc become so strong that they are l3ighly significant, even co-dominant,
features of the process: thus social contradiction between capital and Iahour
is implanted into space and becomes, in one of its forms, the spatial contradic-
tion between the First and Third Worlds; as another example, the social process
of class exploitation of surplus value is transformed into the spatial process of
the transfer of surplus valuc from the peripheral to the central (mctropolitattj
rcgionsofcapitalism (Harvcy, i D7:». Spatial manifestation then forms an input
into the continuing social process, iltering the shape and speed of its develop-
ment, and expressing the general social process in myriad particular, localized
forms. And so the dialectical interaction between social process and spatial
form continues. Marxist geography thus looks at one arca of the set of inter-
actions surrounding social processes. It is so immersed in process that it merges
with thc other sciences also dealing with social process and is distinguishahlc
from them only by’ its degree of specialization in tlicir environmental and
spatial aspects. Like the other marxist sciences, it is aimed at changing the
fundamental operation of social processes by changing the social relations of
production. Social revolutionary changcs, wc argue, arc necessary to solvc
-

endemic spatial problems.

This paradigm is gradually being pieced together via a series of papers which
root out those sections of theory most applicahlc to geography from the marxist
literature. Harvcy ( 9 5) has provided a rcinterprctation of 1-iari’s dynamic

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 255

theory of capitalist development which stresses the type of geographical con-

text in which surplus value may most efficiently be accumulated and the kinds
of geographical structures which are, in turn, generated by spatially central-
izcd capital accumulation. In the marxian theory, the development of ccntral
regions is predicated on the underdevelopment of peripheries, both within
capitalist countries (Dix, 1973; Pcct, 1975b) and in the Third ivorld. The
early functions of the Third ivorld periphery included supplying raw materials
to the metropolitan countrics, providing markets for their industrial products,
and serving as an outlet for surplus capital which ifinvcsted in the First World
would yield a lower rate of profit (Szentes, 1971, t3g; see also Amin, 1974).
Thc economies of the colonial and dependent countries were transformcd to
fit this international division of labour. Subsequently centre and periphery
became locked together, with the centre appropriating surplus value from the
periphery (Frank, ig7 1 , 27-44), yet also needing to unload its vast capital
surpluses there (Lenin, cdn 1973). More generally, contradictions generated
at the centre ofcapitalism arc transmitted to its many peripheral regions inside
and outside the capitalist countries, producing localized forms of contradic-
tion, which then rc-transmit problems to worsen the level of contradiction at
the centre.Thus Blaut (1975) argues that the impulse for social revolution
in the metropolitan countries will come from a series ofwars ofliberation, and
their after-cffccts,-in the Third World periphcry. What marxist geographers
arc beginning to build is a sophisticated theory of spatial dialectics, in which
the description of the obvious division of space into centres and peripheries
is quickly passed through in order to reach the more complex analysis of spatial
relations. Spatial relations are seen as reflecting social relations; if, in social
relations, some people work to support others, so in space the people of peri-
pheries work to support the people of the metropolitan centres, incvitably set-
ting off spatial contradictions and conflicts. Further developments of the theory
of spatial dialectics will clearly bc forthcoming, but for additional examples
of the radical theory of spatial relations see Santos ( 1 g~2--3 ; 1974), La Costc
([973), Blaut (1973), Union of Socialist Geographers (1976), Ushcr (1976)
and Rcgan and Walsh (1976).
Radical geographers have been active in a number of areas of theory recon-
struction other than the topic of undcrdcvclopmcnt-impcrialism. These in-
clude rcnt theory (Walker, 1974; 1975; Harvey, 1974-see also Brucgcl, 1975),
cultural evolution (Haring, 1975) and spatial inequality (Peet, 1975b). At the
same time, and often mixed in with theory reconstruction, the first applications

ofmarxist-geographical theory to contemporary problems appeared in Harvey

and Chatterjee’s (1974) work on housing in Baltimore, Pcct’s (lg~5c) work
on povcrty, Stone’s (1975) analysis of thc housing crisis, and a series of British
and French papers on urban political economy, state urban policy and plan-
ning (Boddy, 1976).
Asecond, majorsourceofradical theory has recently been tapped by a series
of papers on anarchist geography. V’hilc anarchy is conventionally defined
as social life without the authoritative presence of the state, a more revcaling

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

256
definition is social life among a people who no longer need the coercive authority
of the state. Anarchism investigates the origins and development of human
nature, seeing this as a continuing conflict between cooperative and compcti-
tivedrives (Kropotkin, rgo2; lB10ntagu, 1952). Overthe great sweep ofanimal
and human history, individuals have carried on production and have lived
their daily lives predominantly within cooperative structures (although these
structures have often been contained within competitive outer formations).
Capitalism represents the temporary victory of the competitive urge and capi-
talist man, raised in an environment of exaggerated competitive individualism,
is a temporary aberration, a perversion of the human personality which must
be transcended. For the anarchists, social revolution involvcs the indivdual’s
total rejection of society’s efforts to impose a competitive personality in line
with the competitive nature of the society. It means constructing communal
life structures, based on an altruistic version of mutual aid, which enhance
cooperative relationships and the ’communist personality’. In such a society
the statc withers away, to be replaced by a system of mutual agreements and
mutual support between independent production and residential communes
(Dolgoff, Ig~~). In such a society, each person is free to develop in her or
his own way. Human freedom, in its deepest sense, has been achieved.
Anarchism implies a decentralized spatial arrangement of production and
people, because the individual can only fully develop in a close community
of others, because people can only directly control small units of production,
because for the complete person to develop, contact with the natural world
has to be maintained, and because people must take part in a number of dif-
ferent types of economic activity to develop all aspects of their potential. It
is thus easy to understand how the geographer Kropotkin became interested
in anarchism; indeed Kropotkin became perhaps the leading anarchist theor-
ist (see for example Kropotkin, t$g$), and it is thus no surprise that modern
anarchist geographers have tended to concentrate on his work. Galois (1976)
has summarized and commented on Kropotkin’s ideas of human nature within
nature, while Brcitbart (1975) has shown how anarchist principles such as
mutualism, worker self-management, federation, integrated labour, decentral-
ization and self sufliciency would be translated into landscape forms. Further
research on anarchist geographers such as Reclus, and on anarchism in prac-
tice (mainly·in Spain 1936-9), will be published in a future edition of Antipode.

c Radical practice: In terms of radical geographical practice, while some ex-

peditionary work continued in the period 1972-6, mainly in the form of the
Toronto Geographical Expedition founded by Bunge in 1972 (Stephenson,
1 g74, the emphasis shifted to more conventional left-wing forms of organizing
and to the Union of Socialist Geographers. The initial meeting of the union
in tg74 symbolized the change taking place within radical geography as some
people argued forasafer, more appealing name for the union (’radical’), while
others demanded what was, by then, an accurate description of the prevailing
politics among active radical geographers’ (’socialist’). The name ’socialist’ was

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 257

chosen and thc union grew to a couple aFhundred members within a year.
It has enrolled large numbers of students and participated in community
organizing at its most successful local (Simon Frascr University in British
Columbia), and arranged a number of activities at geographers’ meetings
(such as critiques of papers, and left-oriented special sessions on such topics
as imperialism, women, revolutionary theory). The scattered distribution of
radical geographers makes effective action by union locals, and even by the
union as a whotc, difficult although it continues to organize (Union of Socialist
Geographers, 1975-6).
The period ig72--6 thus saw western capitalism more obviously caught in
an uncontrollable process of inner destruction. The deepening contradictions
produced a flurry of crises, which the existing scientific theories could neither
predict nor prevent, throwing the established paradigms into disarray, and
promoting the search for theoretical perspectives capable of interpreting the
events ofa collapsing social system. Geography, with its quantification movc-
ment spent, foundered, again unable to say anything much about what was
happening. But radical geography began to construct a theoretical base
capable of providing an analysis of the events of late capitalism and proposing
revolutionary solutions. We began a deep critique of the established theory
in geography. We began to build radical theory by reading and reinterpreting
the socialist and anarchist literature. We gradually began to apply the analytic
methods we found there to thc contemporary situation. We organized in a
more obviously socialist form. Radical geography broke through to marxism
and began to mature.

3 The continuing revolution

Revolutionary practice involves several types of direct organizing but, particu-
larly in thc lale stage of monopoly capitalism, it also includes the application
of radical theory for the purpose of undercutting the system’s ideological, pro-
tective theory. During the latter kind of revolutionary practice, new theoretical
extensions and discoveries are made, added to the existing stock, and re-
applied in furtherance of the political cause. The function of theoretical ad-
vance, therefore, is to provide a more powerful theory which then interacts
with further revolutionary possibilities; as social revolution is never ending,
so is its theory. Criticism, re-formulation, application and new criticism go
on in an endless wave of crcativity.

In radical geography there arc signs that we have now passed through the
first cycle, characterized by exegetic theorizing, have applied marxian theory
to a series ofpractical problems, and arc beginning a second, more innovative

cycle. Examples ofsecond-cycle radical-thcorctical work by geographers arc

the latter part of Harvey’s Social justice and the city (19i3, chapters 5 and 6),
a paper by Blaut (1976) reinterpreting the rise ofcapitalism as multi- rathcr
than uni-centred, and Barnbrock’s (19ï(j) extension of 11arx’s model of ac-
cumulation. All inB.olve crcativc additions to marxist theory. Other signs of
a maturing radical geography are the increasing recognition wc are recciving

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

258
in radical science as a whole and thc growing links with radicals in Western
Europe and the Third ivorld.
However, within North American geography this is producing a certain rc-
action. Some liberal geographers grant that marxist geographers have ’pre-
sented novel interpretations of many problems’ and ’have outlined fresh blue-
prints for the involvement of social scientists, including geographers, in the
shaping of social policy’ (King, 1976, 305). But, in the mainstream of geo-
graphy, as the radical critique, and its alternative theory, have become more
powerful, so has thc deafness of geographers incrcascd. For example, re-sub-
scriptions to Antipode b5· North American geographers dropped olllivhcn marx-
ist articles began to appcar regularly, while attempts to engage liberals in cri-
tical debate have not produced much useful discussion. Of course, marxism
docs require some study before it can be understood. And there is thc shallow
argument that marxism is politically biased while most geographers are doing
‘value-free, objective, non-political work’ and do not want to get their hands
red’. But radicals feel that what the actions of liberal geographers really show
is that those we criticize respond by simply not listening rather than arguing
back. Radical geographers have continually written introductory papers on
marxism, have held seminars and discussions on introductory marxist theory
and have, in general, approached the discipline in a highly critical, but non-
~litist and open way. What can our interpretation of the ostr-ich-likc behaviour
ofour colleagues he other than that it revcals the weakness of the philosophical
base of conventional geography?
Within radical geography, the theoretical base is increasingly strong in one
of the traditional areas of geographic interests (spatial relations) and con.
spicuously weak in another area (environmental relations). The marxist thcory’
ofspatial relations is becoming more and more sophisticated, cspccially in the
area of underdevelopment processes. In that area a colzerent body of theory,

developed outside geography, already existed; in addition, there is a condition

of crisis in spatial relations between the centre and the periphery of capitalism,
marked by a series of successful wars of Third World liberation, which has
spurred on theoretical inquiry. But there is also an cnvironmcntal crisis of
monumental proportions. In the capitalist mode the main ’matcrials’ of pro-
duction-man (labour) and environment (rcsourccs)-arc treated as pieces
ofmatter to be exploited with intimate regard to profit but without even casual
regard to the consequences for the sources of these ’materials’. The marxist
argument is that capitalism’s relationship with the natural world must be
essentially destructive, as it is with the fragile ’personality of man’. This de-
structivc relationship results in part from a set of characteristic attitudcs to-
wards nature produced by the capitalist system : the natural elements are ‘com-
modit}~ized’, so that the beauty of the earth is experienced as ’photographs’,
while minerals, soil, vegetation and animals are mcrc ’resources’. And in part
it results from capitalism’s ncvcr-cnding need to accumulate, to constantly
increase production, leading to an expansion in the geographic area of resource
exploitation and a deepening of its intensity. The interactiorl between a set

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 259

of commodity attitudes and the system’s need to expand makes up the diaicc-
tics of man’s self-destruction. The cnvironmcntal crises wc experience today
arc the symptoms of man’s transformation of the earth from benign home
to tlzc cesspool afhis last resting place. It is thus that the dialectical materialist
approach can be
applied to environment-man relations (see e.g., Coatcs,
1972); yct this of geography remains largely untouched by radical geo-
arca

graphcrs (for an exception, see Ovcrton, 1976). This would seem to indicate
that radical geography is still trappcd in thc areas of emphasis of the ’new
geography’ which stressed spatial rathcr than environmental qucstions. If so,
it is time to brcak the last links with liberalism, for a truly mature radical
geography must cover all capitalist contradictions of a geographical type, bc
holistic within itself, and integrated with both social and physical academic
disciplines to contribute fully to a whole radical science.
III Conclusion: material context and the development of conscious-
ness

This essay has presented a case study of the relationship between the context
ofmaterial events and the development of radical consciousness. In conclusion
I w-ill drawtogether some general idcas on this relationship derived from the
experience, and contemplation on the experience, of the development of radical
geography.
Consciousness develops under the stimulus of a sequence of changing
material events. These events arc perceived and experienced, assigned a placc in
a pre-eaisting but changing order ofevents, and
’appropriated’ or incorporated
to become a part of an individual’s knowledge and awareness. Ifthc appropria-
tion is a significant one it may cause consciousness to leap to a new level, a#fect-
ing perception, oricntation and appropriation the next time that type, or even
another type, of event occurs (Oilman, 1971, part II). Hence, while material
events provides a ’determining’ context for the development of consciousness,
the deterministic relationship between the two is a dialectical onc. This allows
consciousness to achicvc a dynamic somewhat of its own in which change may
take both quantitative and qualitative forms, although qualitative change
almost always occurs under the cnhanccd stimulus of contradiction and
extreme crisis in the material context. Includcd in the context of material
events are ideologies, those propagatcd by the directors of the political systcm,
and those propagated by its critics. The system-supportive ideologies serve to
blunt the effects of sharp events, provide diversionary explanations for their
causes, and in a myriad otherways act to promote false consciousness. And yet,
undcr capitalism, socictal contradiction must inevitably surface, for it cannot
be contained, and efforts to counteract it only produce a greater explosion
in thc end. Contradiction and mounting crisis constantly threaten the structure
of false consciousness causing the agencies of cultural diversion (’enter-
tainment’ etc.) to seek ever more ridiculous and destructive modes, until false
consciousness itsclf is so ridden with internal contradiction as to collapse, like

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

260

Nixon, under a galc of derision. Then humans encounter the dircct influence
ofsocietal contradiction which is appropriatcd as deep criticism, consciousness
develops, the individual’s struggle with an imposcd self escalates and the col-
lcctive transcendence to a new social order begins. The revolution is at hand.
Who can question that this process has not already’ begun? Is it not obvious
that, cspccially during the rg6os, contradictions began to cause massive social
disintcgration in the countries of ‘advanced’ capitalism? Is it not clear that
in the ig70s new contradictions have continued to be added to the old, that
one contradiction has fed into another, and that the level ofgencral contradic-
tion is rising? And anyone who has watched the efforts of the state to ’solve’
its problems knows them to be superficial, sees thc state’s reliance on divcr-
sionary ideology increasing, and knows that in the end we will be forced, by
life-tlireatening contradiction, to grapple with basic causcs-to encounter
revolutionary solution.
Acadcmics, whether they want to be or not, are an integral part of this pro-
cess. They arc firstly conscious human beings and secondly knowlcdgcablc

people; the structure of their knowledge is intertwined witl the qualities of

their consciousness, and both may be transformed by material contradiction.
For many academics, and others, this transformation has been under way for
the last ten years, leading to the rise of radical science. Radical science
represents our desperate (perhaps last) attempt to penetrate through ideologi-
cal from an examination of the material basis of
theory, to start ancw capital-
ism, and to erect a critical and visionary theory (the core of a new conscious-
ness) on this base. The dialectical method is absolutely essential for under-
standing our argument and message (which is why we are often dismissed as
simplistically deterministic and dogmatic). It is thus incumbent on radicals
not only to criticize, not only to propagate the results of radical thinking, but
to constantly explain our philosophy, mcthodology and objectives. Our con-
clusions are the rcsult of a different perception of thc material world, but they
are much more the result of a difl’erent appropriation of those events.

Radical geography has mirrored (in miniature) the devclopment of radical

science. We have had particular difficulties in escaping the trap of ideological
theory, and we face especially large problems in explaining our philosophy
to othcr geographers because of thc fuzzy yet powerful nature of ideology in

geography. ivc had to go through an extended liberal period before we could

achieve a deeper, theoretical radicalism, whcrcas other radical social scicntists
could go straight to marxist, anarchist and other truly radical theoretical per-
spectives. Yet, we have at last achieved a radical-theoretic basis and arc busy
developing and applying it. We have entered a dynamic propelled by the mass
force of colliding material events and the little bits and pieces of diversion
are now increasingly remote. They are nothing comparcd with the general
direction in which we arc headed, for the coming collapse of capitalism makes
it essential that we develop a new theory of environmental space. As the col-
lapse begins we must be rcady with a highly developed theory to explain what
is happening, to point out the nccd for revolutionary solutions, and to have

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 261

sophisticated models of these solutions at hand. We feel we can help to trains-

form consciousness when the need for transformation is made obvious by a

stateof ultimate contradiction.

Clark University

IV References

Albaum, M. I973: Geography and contemporary issues: studies of relevant problems. New
York : John Wiley.
Amin, S. 1974: Accumulation on a world scale. New York: Monthly Review Press. (2
volumes.)
Anderson, J. 1973: Idcology in geography: an introduction. Antipode 5, I-6.
Barnbrock, J. 1974: Prolegomenon to a methodological debate on location theory:
the case of von Thünen. Antipode 6, 59-66.
I976: Conditions for stable and unstable growth in Marx’s model of accumulation.
Antipode 8, I2-23.
Blaut, J. 1970: Geographic models of imperialism. Antipode 2, 65-85.
1973: The theory of development. Antipode 5, 22-6.
I975: Imperialism: the marxist theory and its evolution. Antipode 7, I-I9.
1976: Where was capitalism born? Antipode 8, I-I I.
Boddy, M., editor, I976: Urban political economy. Antipode 8 (I).
Breitbart, M. 1975: Impressions of an anarchist landscape. Antipode 7, 44-9.
Breitbart, M. and Peet, R. 1974: A critique of advocacy planning. In Lcy,
D., editor, Community participation and the spatial order of the city, Vancouver: Tantalus.
Bruegel, I. I975: The marxist theory of rent and the contemporary city: a critique
of Harvey. In Conference of Socialist Economists, Political economy and the housing
question, London: Political Economy of Housing Workshop.
Buchanon, K. I972: The geography of empire. London: Spokesman Books.
I975: Reflections on education in the Third World. London: Spokesman Books.
Bunge, W. I969: The first years of the Detroit Geographical Expedition: a personal
report. Field Notes, discussion paper no. I.
Buttimer, A. I976: Grasping the dynamism of lifeworld. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 66 (2), 277-92.
Coates, K. I972: Socialism and the environment, London: Spokesman Books.
Corey, K. 1972: Advocacy in planning: a reflective analysis. Antipode 4, 42-63.
Detroit Geographical Expedition 1970: A report to the parents of Detroit on
school decentralization. Field Notes, discussion paper no. 2.
1972: The Trumbull community. Field Notes, discussion paper no. 4.
Dix, K. 1973: Appalachia: Third World pillage. Antipode 5, 25-30.
Doherty, J.I973: Race, class and residential segregation in Britain. Antipode 5, 45-51.
Dolgoff, S. I974: The anarchist collectives. New York: Free Life Editions.
Ernst, R., Hugg, L., Crooker, R. and Ayotte, R. I974: Competition and conflict
over land use change in the inner-city: institition versus community. Antipode 6,

70-97.
Folke, S. 1973: First thoughts on the geography of imperialism. Antipode 5, 16-20.
Frank, A. G. I971: Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Galois, B. I976: Ideology and the idea of nature: the case of Peter Kropotkin. Antipode
8, 1-16.
Haring, K. 1975: Marx on cultural evolution: a review. Antipode 7, I-8.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

262

Harvey, D. I969: Explanation in geography. London: Edward Arnold.

I972a: Social justice and spatial systems. In Peet, R., editor, Geographical perspectives
on American poverty, Worcester, Mass.: Antipode Monograph in Social Geography,
no. I.

I972b: Revolutionary and counter revolutionary theory in geography and the prob-
lem of ghetto formation. Antipode 6, I-I3.
I973: London: Edward Arnold and Baltimore: The Johns
Social justice and the city.
Hopkins University Press.
I974: Class monopoly rent, finance capital and the urban revolution. Regional Studies
8, 239-52.
I975: The geography of capitalist accumulation: a reconstruction of the marxian
theory. Antipode 7, 9-2I.
Harvey, D. and Chatterjee, L. I974: Absolute rent and the structuring of space by
governmental and financial institutions. Antipode 6, 22-36.
Horvath, R. I97I: The ’Detroit Geographical Expedition and Institute’ experience.
Antipode 3, 73-85.
Hurst, M. E. 1973: Establishment geography: or how to be irrelevant in three easy
lessons. Antipode 5, 40-59.
Ive, G. 1975: Walker and the ’new conceptual framework’ of urban rent. Antipode 7,
20-30.
King, L. I976: Alternatives to a positive economic geography. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, 293-308.
Kropotkin, P. I898: Fields, factories and workshops. London: T. Nelson.
I902: Mutual aid: a factor of evolution. London: Heinemann.
La Coste, Y. I973: An illustration of geographical warfare: bombing of the dikes on
the Red river, Xorth Vietnam. Antipode 5, I-I3.
Lefebvre, H. I969: The sociology of Marx. New York: Vintage.
Lenin, V. I.: Imperialism, the highest stage (Peking:
of capitalism Foreign Languages Prcss,
I973).
Massey, D. I973: Towards a critique of industrial location theory. Antipode 5, 33-
9.
Monstad, M. I974: François Perroux’s theory of ’growth pole’ and ’development’ pole:
a critique. Antipode 6, I06-I3.

Montagu, A. I952: Darwin: competition and cooperation. New York: Schuman.

Morrill, R. I966: The negro ghetto: alternatives and consequences. Geographical
Review, 55, 339-62.
National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Geography, 1973: Gcographical per-
spectives and urban problems. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Ollman, B. I97I: Alienation: Marx’s conception of man in eapitalist society. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Olsson, G. I974: Servitude and inequality in spatial planning: idcology and method-
ology in conflict. Antipode 6, 16-2I.
Overton, J. I976: The magician’s bargain: some thoughts and comments on hydro-
electric and similar development schemes. Antipode 8, 33-46.
Peet, R. I972: Some issues in the social geography of American povery. In Peet, R.,
editor, Geographical perspectives on American poverty, Worcester, Mass.: Antipode
Monograph in Social Geography, no. I.
I974: Review of ’the Trumbull Community’. Annals of the Association of American Geo-
graphers 64, I48-50.
I975a: The geography of crime: a political critique. The Professional Geographer 27,
277-80 and 28 (1976), 96-I00.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015

 263

I975b: Rural inequality and regional planning. Antipode 7, I0-24.

I975c: Inequality and poverty: a marxist-geographic theory. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 65, 564-7I.
Porter, P. and De Souza, A. I974: The underdevelopment and modernization of the Third
World. Association of American Geographers, Commission on College Geography,
resource paper no. 28.

Regan, C. and Walsh, F. 1976: Dependence and underdevelopment: the case of

mineral resources and the Irish republic, Antipode 8, 46-59.
Rieser, R. I973: The territorial illusion and behavioral sink: critical notes on be-
havioral geography. Antipode 5, 52-7.
Santos, M. I972-3: Underdevelopment and poverty: a geographer’s view. University
of Toronto, Latin American in residence lectures, no. 3
I974: Geography, marxism and underdevelopment. Antipode 6, I-9.
Slater, D. 1973: Geography and underdevelopment-I. Antipode 5, 2I-32.
I975: The poverty of modern geographical enquiry. Pacific Viewpoint 16, I59-76.
I976: Anglo-Saxon geography and the study of underdevelopment. Antipode 8, 88-
93.
Smith, D. 1972: Towards a geography of social well-being: inter-state variations in
the United States. In Pect, R., editor, Geographical perspectives on American poverty,
Worcester, Mass.: Antipode Monograph in Social Geography, no. I.
Stephenson, D. I974: The Toronto Geographical Expedition. Antipode 6, 98-I0I.
Stone, M. I975: The housing crisis, mortgage lending and class struggle. Antipode 7,
22-37.
Szentes,T. I97I: The political economy of underdevelopment. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiado:
Tuan, Yi Fu I976: Humanistic geography. Annals of the Association of American Geo-
graphers 66, 266-76.
Union of Socialist Geographers I975-6: Newsletter I, nos. I-4.
I976: Study papers on imperialism. Burnaby, BC, Canada: Union of Socialist Geo-
graphers. (87 pages.)
Usher, P. I976: The class system, metropolitan dominance and northern development
in Canada. Antipode 8, 28-32.
Walker, R. I974: Urban ground rent: building a new conceptual framework. Antipode
6, 5I-8.
1975: Contentious issues in marxian value and rent theory: a second and longer
look. Antipode 7, 3I-53.
Wisner, B. I969: Editor’s note. Antipode I, iii.
I970: Introduction: on radical methodology. amtipode 2, I-3.

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Purdue University on January 18, 2015