地理研究

地理研究 ›› 2012, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (5): 771-781.doi: 10.11821/yj2012050001

• 理论与方法 •    下一篇

区域地理与系统地理二元论的演变及其透析

叶超1, 蔡运龙2   

  1. 1. 南京师范大学地理科学学院 南京 210046;
    2. 北京大学城市与环境学院 北京 100871
  • 收稿日期:2011-08-21 修回日期:2011-12-05 出版日期:2012-05-20 发布日期:2012-05-20
  • 作者简介:叶超(1978- ),男,甘肃武威人,副教授,博士,主要研究方向为城市化与城乡关系、地理学思想与方法。E-mail:yeover@163.com
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金项目(41001092);科技部创新方法工作(2007FY140800);江苏省优势学科资助

Causes and effects of dualism between regional geography and systematic geography

YE Chao1, CAI Yun-long2   

  1. 1. College of Geographic Sciences, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210046, China;
    2. College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
  • Received:2011-08-21 Revised:2011-12-05 Online:2012-05-20 Published:2012-05-20

PDF (PC)

赞

被引次数

29 | 4

摘要： 地理学是一门追求普适性的学科,还是强调其独特性,这个"普适"与"例外"的问题曾引起地理学史上最大的方法论争论。它反映出系统地理学与区域地理学的二元论。系统地理学家强调地理学追求一般法则,区域学派则认为研究独特的区域是地理学的核心。这种二元论争论在古希腊时代就初见端倪,"舍费尔—哈特向之争"则使其达到顶点。对争论的历史根源和发展演变的分析表明:虽然两个学派的代表人物哈特向和舍费尔都至少在形式上反对只强调系统和区域中的一个而忽视另一个的做法,但是他们的兴趣、价值观导致的偏好和地理学史观的重大分歧,使他们最终对区域地理和系统地理的倾向不一样。20世纪80年代的"哈特—格里奇之争"只是这种二元论的一个余波。其后,多元主义方法论的兴起使得这种二元论争论逐渐淡出人们的视野,但后现代地理学聚焦于"批判的区域研究",实质上仍是这种争论在新时代的变种。中国地理学界缺乏此种争论,原因可能在于"实用主义"的学术导向、学术环境、学术评价体制、折中调和的理论构建方式等。这不利于中国地理学自立于世界学术之林。

关键词: 区域地理学, 系统地理学, 二元论, 舍费尔&mdash, 哈特向之争, 哈特&mdash, 格里奇之争

Abstract: In the history of geography,one of the most excited methodological debates is the dualism between regional geography and systematic geography.It reflects different viewpoints among different geographers about the nature and methods of geography since the ancient times.The systematic geographers stress that geography is a science pursuing the general rules,but the regional geographers regard region as the centre of geographical research.There are some persistent debates on this kind of dualism from ancient Greece,and Schaefer-Hartshorne Debate displays the conflicts between regional geography and systematic geography reach the peak.Although Schaefer and Hartshorne formally oppose the kind of dualism that only underlines one,but ignores the other,the different preferences caused by their interest,values and the different attitudes to the history of geographical ideas finally lead to the real dualism.By contrast,the influences of Hart-Golledge Debate are smaller,and it is like an epilogue.Thereafter,with the rise of the methodological pluralism and postmodern geographies,the dualism between regional geography and systematic geography becomes more unimportant than ever.The history of the dualism shows value becomes one of the most important factors in the course of defining what geography is.More and more scholars begin to hold a kind of standpoint admitting the different values have their rationality and logic after the Second World War,and it becomes a common consensus on popular trends and general rule,especially with the development of postmodern geographies.The possible reasons why these debates in Chinese geography are hard to be found are: the academic orientation of pragmatism that lay particular stress on those geographical knowledge and techniques that can be quickly applied to solve the 'practical' issues,the special social and economic contexts,the academic evaluated system,and the eclectic attitudes to connecting regional geography to systematic geography.

Key words: regional geography, systematic geography, dualism, Schaefer-Hartshorne Debate, Hart-Golledge Debate