Nature - autonomous learning

104 the ‘nature’ of geographySUMMARY: GEOGRAPHY’S NATURESThis chapter has been a very long one. So what have we learnt from thispotted history of geography’s engagement with the subject of nature? Mostobviously we have discovered five things. First, it’s evident that geographers’understandings of nature have altered drastically since geography wasfounded as a university subject. This alteration can only be understoodas the combined effect of changes external to the discipline and debatesinternal to it. Second, it’s equally evident that geographers’ understandingsof different aspects of nature have become more specialised and diverse overtime.Third, it’s clear that nature has always been something of a problemfor geography, both in terms of the discipline’s internal constitution and itsexternal links with other disciplines and outside bodies (e.g. fundingagencies, user-groups).This chapter has shown that disagreements overwhich ‘nature’ geographers should study (and how) have been integral tothe successive reconstitution of the ‘nature of geography’. Fourth, we’velearnt that geography contains little ecocentric thinking, let alone thinkingthat seeks to ‘defend’ a putative ‘human nature’ from the ‘predations’ ofbiotechnology and the like.This contrasts starkly with the widespread publicsympathy for the well-being of the non-human world, and with those manygroups that object to any attempt to alter the ‘natural’ qualities of people’sminds and bodies. Finally, we’ve learnt that today geography has returnedto its original interest in both the environment and ‘human nature’, yet inways that are far removed from the era of Davis, Herbertson and Mackinder.Presently, there is no unifying conception of nature that can bring human,physical and environmental geography closer together.Less obviously, this chapter has, I hope, dispelled two fallacies that theunwary may hold about the knowledges of nature that geographers produce.Thefirst fallacy is to assume that this knowledge has become moreaccurate and truthful over time.The second fallacy is to assume that whilehuman geographers produce knowledge of other peoples’ understandingsof nature or the social processes transforming nature, physical geographersproduce knowledge of nature ‘as it really is’ (with environmental geographersproducing or combining both kinds of knowledge). Both fallaciesprivilege physical geography’s ‘scientific’ procedures as the surest wayto know nature correctly. They assume that where geographers mighthave misapprehended nature in the past (in the environmental-deterministdays, say) they have got things more or less right today.There are many