دلایل افول دیدگاه فضایی- کمی در مطالعه‌های جغرافیای سیاسی

نوع مقاله: بنیادی

نویسندگان

1 استاد جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

2 استادیار جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشکدة جغرافیا، دانشگاه تهران

3 دانشجوی دکتری جغرافیای سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

طی بروز انقلاب فضایی­ـ کمی در علم جغرافیا، تحول‌هایی در اندیشه و روش­شناسی این علم به‌وجود آمد. این دیدگاه بر شاخه­های تخصصی جغرافیا به شکل‌های گوناگون تأثیر گذاشت. جغرافیای سیاسی در دهه­های 1950 و 1960 همچنان جهت‌گیری سنتی یعنی دیدگاهی محیطی و ناحیه­ای داشت، اما پس از وقفه‌ای طولانی، انقلابی در آن ایجاد شد. درواقع، زمانی دیدگاه فضایی­ـ کمی در پژوهش­های جغرافیای سیاسی به‌کار گرفته شد که روند تکاملی خود را در دیگر شاخه­های جغرافیا طی کرده بود و از درون آن، رویکردهای فضایی و سیستمی بیرون آمده و جغرافیای رفتاری متأثر از آن شکل گرفته بود. پژوهش حاضر با استفاده از روش توصیفی- تحلیلی بررسی می­کند که چرا دیدگاه فضایی با تأخیر در مطالعه‌های جغرافیدانان سیاسی به‌کار گرفته شد و پس از آن نیز در دهۀ 1970 از محوریت مطالعه‌ها خارج شد. نتایج نشان می­دهد عواملی مانند ناسازگاری پژوهش­های بنیادی با روش پوزیتیویستی در جغرافیای سیاسی؛ تناسب‌نداشتن نظریه­های محوری در دیدگاه فضایی- کمی با مسائل مطرح در جغرافیای سیاسی؛ نادیده‌گرفتن قدرت و سیاست در دیدگاه فضایی موجب شدند این دیدگاه با تأخیر به مطالعه‌های جغرافیدانان سیاسی وارد شود. همچنین تغییر الگو در علم جغرافیا در دهۀ 1970 و تغییر در نظام بین­الملل، موجب شد دیدگاه فضایی در دهۀ 1970 از محور مطالعه‌های جغرافیدانان سیاسی خارج شود؛ هرچند امروزه جایگاه خود را به‌عنوان یکی از دیدگاه­های مطرح حفظ کرده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Reasons for the Wane of Spatial- Quantitative Perspective in Political Geography Studies

نویسندگان [English]

  • Dorreh Mirheidar 1
  • Marjan Badiee Azandahi 2
  • Yashar Zaki 2
  • Fatemeh Sadat Mirahmadi 3
1 Professor, Political Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Political Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 PhD Candidate in Political Geography, Faculty of Geography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction
Following the emergence of spatial perspective and quantitative revolution in human geography, both the “idea” and “methodology” were transformed in the discipline. In 1950s and 1960s, other branches of human geography, except for historical and cultural fields of geography focused mainly on spatial school in their researches and published many scientific works. However, political geography did not manage to adapt itself to these transformations. The result was separation of political geography from the main stream changes of geography in the 1950s and 1960s. The present study tries to find answer to the following question: why did spatial perspective entered political geography with delay, and afterward, in the 1970s, was removed from the center of political geographical studies?
 
Methodology
The present study is a basic research conducted through descriptive-analytical approach. The data were gathered using library and computer research, and then, were analyzed in a qualitative approach.
 
Results and Discussion
The following reasons can be put forward for the question why political geographers applied this perspective late in their studies:
Incongruity of basic researches with positivist method in political geography. Basic researches in the realm of politics cannot be adapted to positivist perspective. Hence, quantitative revolution led to a disturbance in political geography, as quantitative works were of limited use in political geography and, initially, had little to offer research for “spatial laws” except for the case of election.
Inappropriateness of basic theories of spatial – quantitative perspective with problems of political geography. Quantitative geography developed as a response to the current challenges, particularly economic stagnation of Western countries. One outcome of spatial-quantitative was focus on Location Theory. However, this theory was primarily applied in urban and economic geography and did not have much relevance in political geography.
Disregarding of the factors of power and politics in spatial perspective. The positivist political geography was faced with cognitivist shortcomings. This perspective was political and independent of the politics. Location theory was largely spatialization of neoclassic economy of those days. In common economy and, hence, location theory, the problem of power can easily be ignored. In other words, with focus on the neoclassic economies as a self-regulative system, the problems of conflict and unequal distribution are ignored. Thus, a real political geography could not flourish within such perspective; as political geographers had to ignore the agent in their studies and investigate the “processes” rather than “causes”.
Although political geographers joined to spatial perspective too late but they did valuable contribution, especially in election geography. Study of urban politics experienced changes in administrative areas during 1970s. After 1970s, spatial perspective went out of the centrality of studies. Regarding the decline of spatial perspective in the studies of political geographers, two reasons can be put forward
Paradigm shift in the science of geography. Evidently, the existing ideas in political geography are always (of course, with some delay) a function of thoughts in other branches of geography. By the emergence of economic and political crises in many western countries in the 1960s, most of the geographers inclined toward radicalism-Marxism and structural perspective since 1970s. Also, since 1970s, the humanist school of geography has been established and developed. The main criticism of humanists from positivist was that in the positivist methodology and spatial thought school, sufficient attention has not been paid to explanation of humanist problems. In the 1980s and 1990s, the thought framework of geographers shifted significantly and the development of perspectives since 1970s entered into humanist geography led to the formation of trends such as critical geography, post-structuralist and post-modern geography.  
Changes in international system. Clearly, the ending years of the 1960s, due to changes in the international system, political geography was gradually recovered. Some of these changes are including emergence of new actors in the international stage due to decolonization, emergence of nationalism in the third world, Cuban revolution, and the growth of evolutionary movements in other regions of the world. By the changes in the national system, political geographers were no longer obliged to hide themselves behind the shield of positivism which claimed to be positive and impartial, and remove the problems of power and politics from their writings.
 
Conclusion
Spatial perspective affected sub-branches of geography in varying degrees. Meanwhile, political geography was one of the branches least affected by the perspective and had the most traditional orientation in 1950s and 1960s. The main factors which, during 1950s and 1960s, prevented political geographers from adapting to the major thinking school of the spatial perspective are incongruity of basic researches with positivist methodology in political geography, inappropriateness of basic theories in spatial-quantitative perspective with the issues of political geography, and ignoring power and politics in spatial perspective. But the reason for the decline in the importance of spatial perspective in the 1970s in the studies of political geographers is the paradigm shift in the science of geography and changes in the international system. At the end, it must be pointed out that despite all challenges and deficiencies of spatial-quantitative perspective; this perspective has had useful reflections, i.e. the expansion of behavioral geography. Agnew believes that spatial perspective paved the way for recovering political geography, as the new political geography was developed in a critical context of spatial-quantitative revolution. According to Cox, spatial perspective is one of the three main traditions of studies in geographical science. Also, Agnew believes that spatial analysis is of the three main thinking trends entered political geography since the 1960s, and that it has been placed successfully in landscape of this discipline. In fact, nowadays, we witness pluralism in political geography in terms of both subject and methodology, and spatial-quantitative perspective is one of those numerous perspectives used by political geographers, since sometimes, it is the only approach to investigation of a problem.  

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • quantitative method
  • political geography
  • spatial perspective
  • spatial science approach
  • systemic approach

میرحیدر، درّه، راستی، عمران و فاطمه­سادات میراحمدی، 1392، مبانی جغرافیای سیاسی، انتشارات سمت، تهران.

خوشوقت، محمدحسین، 1375، تجزیه و تحلیل تصمیم­گیری در سیاست خارجی، مؤسسة چاپ و انتشارات وزارت امور خارجه، تهران.

فرید، یدالله، 1379، شناخت­شناسی و مبانی جغرافیای انسانی، انتشارات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی اهر، تبریز.

بهفروز، فاطمه، 1384، فلسفۀ روش­شناسی تحقیق علمی در جغرافیا، چاپ دوم، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

افضلی، رسول و علی امیری، 1390، بنیادهای شناخت­شناسی و روش­شناسی نظریه­های پست­مدرن در جغرافیای سیاسی و ژئوپلیتیک، پژوهش­های جغرافیای انسانی، سال چهل­وسوم، شمارۀ 77، صص 39- 60.

بیات، عبدالرسول، 1381، فرهنگ واژه­ها، درآمدی بر مکاتب و اندیشه­های معاصر، مؤسسة اندیشه و فرهنگ دینی، قم.

بلاکسل، مارک، 1389، جغرافیای سیاسی، ترجمۀ محمدرضا حافظ­نیا و دیگران، نشر انتخاب، تهران.

دوئرتی، جیمز و رابرت فالتزگراف، 1383، نظریه­های متعارض در روابط بین­الملل، ترجمۀ وحید بزرگی و علیرضا طیب، نشر قومس، تهران.

حافظ­نیا، محمدرضا و مراد کاویانی­راد، 1393، فلسفۀ جغرافیای سیاسی، پژوهشکدۀ مطالعات راهبردی، تهران.

حاتمی­نژاد، حسین، 1391، جغرافیای رادیکال؛ رویکرد میان­رشته­ای در جغرافیای انسانی، فصلنامۀ مطالعات میان­رشته­ای در علوم انسانی، سال چهارم، شمارۀ 3، صص 15- 32.

کرامت­زاده، عبدالمجید، 1385، بررسی ویژگی­ها و روش­شناسی­های علوم اجتماعی و علوم طبیعی از دیدگاه پوپر، فصلنامۀ روش­شناسی علوم انسانی، شمارۀ 48، صص 29- 48.

معینی علمداری، جهانگیر، 1385، روش­شناسی نظریه­های جدید در سیاست (اثبات­گرایی و فرااثبات­گرایی)، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

جونز، مارتین، جونز، رایس و مایکل وودز، 1386، مقدمه­ای بر جغرافیای سیاسی، ترجمۀ زهرا پیشگاهی­فرد و رسول اکبری، چاپ اول، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

شکویی، حسین، 1383، اندیشه­های نو در فلسفۀ جغرافیا، جلد اول، نشر گیتاشناسی، تهران.

میرحیدر، درّه، 1389، تحولات پنج دهه اندیشه و جُستار در جغرافیای سیاسی، چاپ اول، نشر پاپلی، مشهد.

پرسکات، جی. آر. وی، 1358، گرایش­های تازه در جغرافیای سیاسی، ترجمۀ درّه میرحیدر، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

پوراحمد، احمد، 1385، قلمرو و فلسفۀ جغرافیا، چاپ اول، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، تهران.

 

  1. Afzali, R. and Amiri, A., 2011, Epistemological and Methodological Foundations of Postmodern Theories in Political Geography and Geopolitics, Human Geography Research Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 77, PP. 39-60. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Agnew, J. and Muscarà, L., 2012, Making Political Geography, 2nd Edition, Rowman and Littlefield, New York.
 

  1. Bayat, A., 2002, Dictionary of Words, an Introduction to Contemporary Schools and Ideas, Institute of Religious Thought and Culture, Qom. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Behforouz, F., 2005, Philosophy of Methodology of Scientific Research in Geography, 2nd Edition, Tehran University Press, Tehran. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Blacksell, M., 2010, Political Geography, Translated by: Mohamad Reza Haferznia, et al., Entekhab Publishing, Tehran. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Cox, K. R., 2005, Political Geography Critical Concept in the Social Sciences, Routledge, London and NewYork.
 

  1. Cupples, J., 2009, Rethinking Electoral Geography: Spaces and Practices of Democrany in Nicaragua. Transactions, Intsitute of British Geographers, Vol. 34, No. 1, PP. 110–124
 

  1. Dikshit, R. D., 1982, Political Geography a Contemporary Perspective, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New Delhi.
 

  1. Duerty, J. and Faltzgraf, R., 2004, Conflicting Theories In International Relations, Translated by: Bozorgi, V. and tayeb, A., Ghomes Publication, Tehran. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Elden, S., 2009, Space, International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Vol. 10, PP. 262-267.
 

  1. Farid, Y., 2000, Epistemology and Principles of Human Geography, Islamic Azad University of Ahar Publication, Tabriz. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Golledge, R. G., 2008, Behavioral Geography and the Theoretical/Quantitative Revolution, Geographical Analysis, Vol. 40, No. 3, PP. 239–257.
 

  1. Griffith, D. A., et al., 2013, Geographical Analysis: It's First 40 Years, Geographical Analysis, Vol. 45, No. 1, PP. 1–27.
 

  1. Hafeznia, M. and Kavyanirad, M., 2014, Philosophy of Political Geography, Institute for Strategic Studies, Tehran. (In Perisan)

 

 

  1. Hataminejad, H., 2012, Radical Geography, Interdisciplinary Approach in Human Geography, Interdisciplinary Studies in the Human Sciences, Vol. 4, Vol. 3, PP. 15-32. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Johnston, R. J., 1980, Electoral Geography and Political Geography, Australian Geographical Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, PP. 37–50.
 

  1. Johnston, R. J., 1986, Information Provision and Individual Behavior: A Case Study of Voting at an English General Election, Geographical Analysis, Vol. 18, No. 2, PP. 129-141.
 

  1. Johnston, R. J., 1991, Geography and Geographer: Anglo-American Huaman Geography, 4th Edition, Edward Arnold, London.
 

  1. Johnston, R., et al., 2014, Mutual Misunderstanding and Avoidance, Misrepresentations and Disciplinary Politics: Spatial Science and Quantitative Analysis in (United Kingdom) Geographical Curricula, Dialogues in Human Geography, Vol. 4, No. 1, PP. 3-25.
 

  1. Johnston, R., 2009, Spatial Science, International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Vol. 10, PP. 383-394.
 

  1. Jones, M., Jones, R. and Woods, M., 2007, An Introduction to Political Geography, Translated by: Pishgahifard Z. and Akbari, R., Tehran University Press, Tehran. (In Perisan)
 

  1. Karamatzadeh, A., 2006, Comparative Study of Characteristics and Methodologies of Social Sciences and Natural Sciences from The Perspective of Popper, Methodology of Human Sciences Quarterly, No. 48, PP. 29-48. (In Perisan)
 

  1. Kasperson, R. E. and Minghi, J. V., 1969, The Structure of Political Geography, Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago.
 

  1. Kavanagh, A., 2009, Electoral Geography, International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Vol. 3, PP. 397-399.
 

  1. Kliot, N. and Mansfield, 1997, The Political Landscape of Partition the Case of Cyprus. Political Geography, Vol. 16, No. 6, PP. 495-521.
 

  1. Khoshvaght, M., H., 1996, Analysis of Decision-making in Foreign Policy, Foreign Ministry Institution Press, Tehran. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Miller, H. J., 1999, Potential Contributions of Spatial Analysis toGeographic Information Systems for Transportation (GIS-T), Geographical Analysis,Vol. 31, No. 4, PP. 373-399.
 

  1. Moinee Alamdari, J., 2006, Methodology of New Theories in Politics (Positivism and Postpositivism), Tehran University Press, Tehran. (In Perisan)
  2. Mirheydar, D., 2010, Tracing Regarding of a Political Geographer During Past Five Decade, Papoli Publication, Mashhad. (In Perisan)
 

  1. Mirheydar, D., Rasti, O. and Mirahmadi, F. S., 2013, The Basic Themes in Political Geography, Samt Publication, Tehran. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Muir, R., 1975, Modern Political Geography, The Macmillan Press LTD, London
 

  1. OʼLoughlin, J., 2006, Spatial Analysis in Political Geography, Ina Companion to Political Geography, Edited by Agnew, J. and Mitchell, K. and Toal, G., 3rd Edition, Blackwell Publishing, NewYork.
 

  1. Pourahmad, A., 2006, The Scope and Philosophy of Geography, Tehran University Press, Tehran. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Prescott, J., R. V., 1979, New Trends in Political Geography, Translated by: Mirheydar, D., Tehran University Press, Tehran. (In Perisan)

 

  1. Shakoee, H., 2004, New Ideas in Philosophy of Geography, Vol. I, Gytashnasi Publication, Tehran. (In Perisan)
 

  1. Short, J. R., 1993, An introduction to Political Geography, 2nd Edition, Routledge, London and NewYork.
 

  1. Sibely, D., Jackson, P., Atkinson, D. and Washbourne, N., 2005, Cultural Geography: A Critical Dictionary of Key Concepts, L. B. Tauris & Co LTd, London.
 

  1. Soja, E. W., 1974, A Paradigm for the Geographical Analysis of Political Systems, In Locational Approaches to Power and Conflict, Edited by Cox, K. R. Reynolds, D. R. and Rokkan, S., John Wiley and Son, New York.