Marxist geography
Oxford Dictionary of Geography:
Top
Marxist geography
Marxist geography attempts to explain the world and also to change it. Marxism sees human beings gradually transforming themselves from stage to stage until they reach social perfection, and this transformation is seen as an aim towards which societies should be moving. This change is brought about by ‘dialectical’ processes—conflict between opposing forces—bringing forth a new synthesis which again is contradicted, and so on. The forces shaping society are seen as entities, which include capital, labour, capitalism and other modes of production, the state, class, society, and the market.
Marxist geography highlights the dialectical relationships between social processes and the natural environment and spatial relationships. It is concerned with the modes of production which underlie the superstructure of society. It sees spatial and environmental problems, such as the destruction of habitats or uneven development, originating deep within the social formations of capitalism. It is aimed at changing the fundamental operations of social processes by changing the workings of production. Marxist geography is the study of the inherent contradictions of capitalism as they appear in the landscape and as they relate to each other.
Examples may be given of the changing structures and contradictions of capitalism. There is an inherent contradiction in a capitalist state which seeks to generate better conditions funded by taxation. Higher demand for raw materials generates higher costs. More output leads to more pollution and, in an environment where the authorities require strict controls on pollution, costs again rise. The result of these contradictions is the movement by multinational firms from established industrial regions in search of new environments to develop (despoil) and of new, politically virgin, labour to hire (exploit).
Marxist geography has been widely criticized: for the ethnocentric and patriarchal nature of its assumptions, for the passive role apportioned to individuals, who have been turned into non-decision-makers, for its preoccupation with class and industry and its neglect of environmental issues, and by postmodernists, who reject overarching meta-theory.
Wikipedia on Answers.com:
Top
Marxist geography
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2008) |
Marxist geography is a strand of critical geography that uses the theories and philosophy of Marxism to examine the spatial relations of human geography. In Marxist geography, the relations that geography has traditionally analyzed—natural environment and spatial relations—are reviewed as outcomes of the mode of material production. To understand geographical relations, on this view, the social structure must also be examined. Marxist geography attempts to change the basic structure of society.[1]
Philosophy and methodology
Marxist geography is radical in nature and its primary criticism of the positivist spatial science centered on the latter's methodologies, which failed to demonstrate or account for the mechanisms of capitalism and exploitation that underlie human spatial arrangements. As such, early Marxist geographers were explicitly political in advocating for social change and activism; they sought, through application of geographical analysis of social problems, to alleviate poverty and exploitation in capitalist societies.[2] Marxist geography makes exegetical claims regarding how the deep-seated structures of capitalism act as a determinant and a constraint to human agency. Most of these ideas were developed in the early 1970s by dissatisfied quantitative geographers; David Harvey is generally regarded as the primary trail-blazer of the Marxist movement in human geography.
In order to accomplish such philosophical aims, these geographers rely heavily upon Marxist social and economic theory, drawing on Marxian economics and the methods of historical materialism to tease out the manner in which the means of production control human spatial distribution in capitalist structures. Marx is also invoked to examine how spatial relationships are affected by class. The emphasis is on structure and structural mechanisms. This emphasis has yielded results but also criticism.
Criticism
Marxist geography's emphasis on constraints of structure upon human agency has been criticized extensively as deterministic, as not allowing for human agency and autonomy; human action appears determined by capitalism's structural mechanisms in Marxist analysis. By contrast, humanistic geography is a differing critical geography that concentrates on human will and autonomy in explaining geographical patterns. Unsurprisingly, much of the criticism directed at Marxists has emerged from the humanistic fold (although humanistic geography is itself seen as lacking for failing to account for behavioural constraints imposed by social structures).
Marxist geography is also subject to critiques of historical materialism and its applicability to modern-day post-industrial and capitalist societies. The importance placed by Marxists on the notion of class is also subject to critique. Marxist geographers have responded in kind to these polemics.
References
- ^ An Introduction to Marxist Geography.
- ^ Harvey, David. 1973. "Social Justice and the City"
|
||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:
Copyrights:
Oxford Dictionary of Geography
A Dictionary of Geography. Copyright © Susan Mayhew 1992, 1997, 2004. All rights reserved.
Read more
