Critical Theories in Geography: Reactions to the Quantitative Revolution

        In the 1950s, quantitative geography introduced a revolution in the field that shifted the focus away from regions and into spatial science.  Regional geography had focused on the particular and the specifics of places while the new spatial science theorized that claims could be generally applied and universal (Cresswell, 81).  This was an uncomfortable shift for many geographers because it philosophically placed heavy importance on positivism- the belief that only things experienced through senses can be known.  The heavy use of mathematical languages and modeling felt dehumanizing to many geographers, who found it lacking in human qualities of agency, such as emotion and behavior.

            From the 1960s to 1980s, several reactions occurred against the quantitative revolution, which returned qualitative research to the field.  These reactions generated new critical theories that challenged the assumptions of the quantitative revolution.  One challenge came from the humanistic geographer David Ley, who saw that the activity of humans couldn’t always be explained by law-like behavior, such as distance minimalization (Cresswell, 105).  Other reactions by Marxist and feminist geographers found that the quantitative revolution had ignored explanations of gender, justice, equality, exploitation, and oppression (Cresswell, 123).  These were crucial to behavior because they involved power and mobility- things that couldn’t always be determined from quantitative analysis.

            Alternatives were provided by humanist, Marxist, and feminist geographers.  Humanists sought to return to the qualitative methods regional geographers had used, involving interviews, oral history, surveys, and observation.  This allowed for a more personal worldview to be recorded, in what John Kirkland Wright described as “geosophy” (Cresswell, 108).  They also rejected what the quantitative geographers had defined as general and universal.  By incorporating personal experience through relations between people and spiritual and psychological attachments, humanistic geographers showed how it was the individual that was more universal than any spatial law. 

            Marxist geographers wanted to dig deeper than an individual sense of place by incorporating society into it, particularly when it came to inequality.  The goal was to describe unequal development in capitalist societies as a function of geography.  Since most resources are regionally exploited, it follows that there are social consequences in regions where capitalism thrives, especially when it comes to labor.  Space is produced through the actions of people, leading to unequal development that is inherent in the economic structure supporting it.  They felt that it was only “by changing the economic system of a society would it be possible to change the culture” (Cresswell, 127).  Thus, it had a far stronger theoretical power than spatial science, serving as an incentive to bring about social change.

            Feminist geographers suggested that since the theories of geography had largely been defined by men, the research had an inherent male bias (Cresswell, 148).  This was especially true about spatial geography, which was considered the most scientifically based subfield.  Feminists introduced a new female epistemology that involved emotions and metaphorical associations about space.  An intricate complexity about space developed, utilizing the idea of place as your own body, allowing it to be located in multiple ways (Cresswell, 156-157).  Like Marxism, it challenged the power structures of social systems, particularly as they involve patriarchy in addition to inequality.

            Critical theories have shaped the discipline of geography and geographic research by introducing a variety of new methods involving qualitative research.  Humanistic geographers suggested analyzing the “lifeworlds” of individuals, or how they move in space.  Novels were also suggested as analytic sources, as they tap into the essence of being in a particular time and place by allowing the reader to experience their own version of it.  Marxist and feminist geographers preferred to analyze the modes of production and the complexity of emotional spaces, respectively.

            Other ideas sprang from the reactions to these critical theories, involving postmodernism, poststructuralism, and relational geographies.  This group of theories progressed the alternatives by stressing the importance of regional variation as it applies to behavior.  Whereas Marxist and humanistic geographers thought that behavior was determined by economic structure or individual choice, these groups felt it was more determined by relative truth.  This was represented on the maps, charts, letters, numbers, and pictures of a society (referred to as signs, signifiers, and discourse by various philosophers).  This relational approach meant that there was an unseen dimension of society that moved in time, an organic mobility of space that was changing through phases of history.  A major component of their research was posing questions that challenged any theory that held power by claiming a structure, including the Marxist and humanistic ones (Cresswell, 207).  Some relational geographers even suggested that truth was irrelevant: only events determined behavior through non-representation (Cresswell, 227).  Their research involved considerable attention to the way events shape discourse and in turn, human behavior.

            The alternatives to quantitative geography are so rich in variety that they can seem confusing.  For simplification, I see each of them as contributing something new to the field, not necessarily that any of them have a universal answer.  Depending on the situation, each has a valid position.

Cresswell, T. 2013. Geographic Thought: A Critical Introduction. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.