Chapter 16 - Geomorphology, Geography, and Science Bernard 0

408 SCIENTIFIC NATURE OF GEOMORPHOLOGY
ologists should continue the search for general or 'universal' laws or principles, but with
the proviso that they be scientific rather than metaphysical. The formal analysis of Church
and Mark (1980) into the character of proportional relations in geomorphology and their
interpretation as allometric or self-similar 'growth laws' is exemplary in this regard.
Research addressing both emergent and universal properties is necessary if
geomorphology is to evolve toward a societally relevant discipline with nomothetic
explanations and predictive powers.
SUMMARY REMARKS
Traditional accounts of the development of geomorphology have suffered from Whig
historiography which adopts a backward-looking perspective that interprets the relevance
and importance of past figures and events in the context of contemporary values and
paradigms. Because contemporary geomorphology considers itself to be scientific, it often
traces its roots selectively to those figures and events that lend credence to this scientific
image. Such posturing is usually based less on the realities of current practice or reasoned
direction than on misrepresented images and value-laden emphases. Although there are
tangible benefits to such posturing, especially since scientific activities are generally held
in high esteem by society and within academe, there are accompanying costs. It is
paramount that we identify explicitly these costs and benefits because there are
implications for the future of the discipline (cf. Raguraman 1994).
Popular histories of North American geomorphology are biased in that they fail to
recognize the relative importance of geography to geomorphological disciplinary
development. In part, this may be ascribed to geography's relatively recent arrival as an
academic discipline in North America, despite its long-standing intellectual traditions that
extend to the ancient Greeks. The important contributions of geology and geologists,
although central, are unduly stressed, and such preferential representation may be
misleading in several ways. First, it is not evident that the intellectual discipline of
geomorphology, with its focus on earth-surface phenomena, can or should be traced to any
single geological or geographical seed or root, whether a person, institution, event, or
activity. Intellectual interest in the world around us is a human trait that has persisted
throughout history, even before there were disciplines. Disciplinary demarcations are
socially constructed institutions that have become necessary only recently because
individuals can no longer 'know it all'. Imposing contemporary disciplinary structures on
academic thought during historical periods is therefore inaccurate, inappropriate, and
unwarranted. Further, it ignores the malleable and evolving nature of disciplines - their
cores, their boundaries, and the knowledge contained therein are subject to change through
time.
Second, the academic roots of geomorphology are intertwined with those of many
disciplines, not just geology or geography, and it is not self-evident that one discipline can
be asserted to have had a more profound role than another - the 'Championship of the
Disciplines' is unwinnable. Moreover, the distinctions made between geology and
geography, and between geologists and physical geographers, are often matters of trivial
caricaturing. North American departments of geology during the nineteenth century, for
example, retained the services of geographers, biologists, and anthropologists, and only by