It is first important to define the boundaries of contemporary modern geography before addressing the key arguments put forward by Stoddart in his recorded lecture. Early modern geography can be said to date back to the 1490’s, where the subject existed but was communicated in different forms, for example Columbus’ expedition to the America’s in 1492 and shortly after Vespucci’s coastal navigation along the Brazilian coastline enabled the mapping of a previously undiscovered continent (Mayhew, 2017). However, in the context of Stoddart’s lecture, it is more sensible to record contemporary geography as the period post-1800, both due to its content and the fact that most of the academics and geographers that are referenced either in support of his thesis or critiqued by Stoddart himself are dated past this period, which increases the applicability of this essay. Stoddart argues that the key challenge facing contemporary geography today is that of the consequences of the increasing fragmentation within the discipline, specifically the loss of the ‘central idea of geography’ stated by Stoddart in his 1987 lecture. There is also a distinct vexation at the pessimism throughout geography which is increasingly causing difficulty within the discipline. Stoddart then goes on to prescribe a solution to this issue by suggesting the unification of geography in order to draw in expertise from a variety of sources so as to help solve global crises, that have remained for generations and that others are now assuming to solve. It is clear there have also been a number of influences affecting these conclusions, the primary of which can be shown through Stoddart’s choice of academics or works to both support and appraise his argument, giving an insight into how his conclusions may have been derived.
Stoddart’s primary thesis from his 1987 contribution clearly defines that the primary issue facing contemporary geography is the increasing fragmentation of geography as a discipline. However, this in itself is not the fundamental problem, rather it is the repercussions of this specialisation that are precarious. By definition, the idea of proficiency means that geographers, whether human or physical, will continue to move further and further apart from each other as academics take different lines of study, leading them down diverging pathways of study. For example, two physical geographers may start with similar interests, such as the study of climate, yet as they increasingly specialise they move further and further apart, not dissimilar to a family tree. The idea of a family tree, however, is that everyone or every discipline in this case is linked and correlates with Stoddart’s description of a ‘central idea of geography’. Yet in this case, Stoddart clearly argues that this link back to a focal nucleus that binds the discipline together is being eroded in this age of contemporary geography. The concept of a family tree is not antithetical to the idea of a unified subject portrayed in figure 1 (Matthews & Herbert, 2004). This diagram effectively conveys the notion that there is, broadly, a unified geography as is argued by Stoddart. Likewise it also conveys the problematic nature of decentralisation, as the further you move towards the circumference of the circle, the further you drift from the core integration of the discipline.
Due to the aforementioned specialisation, Stoddart also contends that there is a serious danger that geography dissolves as a discipline. This can be shown by his divulgence that the human-side of geography is losing ground on other social disciplines such as economics and sociology (Stoddart, 1987). This is a perception echoed by a number of leading academics, such as R.J. Johnston who argued the subject was ‘obsolete’ (Johnston,1994, p.369) in the context of these other more specialised disciplines. This idea is unintentionally represented by Haggett’s constellation of disciplines (Haggett, 1972) which portrays the inter-disciplinary utility of geography between subjects by linking their utility to human aspects such as anthropology and history as well as more physical subjects such as geology and meteorology. While this seems to indicate a place for geography in linking these different course’s, it also highlights the futility of geography to an extent, as academics from each of these groups could easily work in unison to render the more polymathic geographer inconsequential. This may also link to the lack of synergy within the geographical spectrum (Stoddart, 1987) and as such the ability of geographers to work in harmony to provide answers to multi-disciplinary questions has waned drastically.
The final problem identified by Stoddart refers to the negative attitudes that have seemingly infiltrated geography and infected its academics. Despite geography’s relative youth in the overall academic field, there is an obvious disenchantment about both contemporary and prospective geography (Stoddart, 1987). As a young subject, it could be assumed that there would still be a general excitement with a large proportion of the subject still yet to be expertly covered, yet the broad basis of the subject has meant that a number of other subjects tend to cover a variety of aspects that could also be included under the umbrella term of geography. Equally, the philological meaning of the word ‘geography’ may also suggest a finality about the subject. Literally, Geography translates as making marks (‘graph’) about the Earth (‘geo’). In the last 2 centuries, however, the world has become increasingly closed as our knowledge of the world has become more exhaustive and as such part of the fervour around the subject has dissipated. This corresponds with the classical definition of geography which can be defined as “knowledge of the earthly globe, and the situation of various parts of the earth” (Samuel Johnson, 1755). Classically, therefore are grounds for Stoddart’s claims that geographers have become a depressed group of academics.
Whilst Stoddart does brutally expose geography’s flaws, he does not leave the subject without suggestions of resolution. Stoddart’s throws the majority of his weight behind the recommendation of disciplinary unification. Stoddart says in no uncertain terms that the separation of human and physical geography would be completely futile (Stoddart, 1987). Rather, Stoddart believes in the idea of a ‘unified geography’ which is loosely based on the ideas put forward by Forster in his ‘Observations made during a voyage around the world’ (Forster, 1778). This geography seeks to solve the contemporary issues of the present day and by uniting the different fields of study, create solutions to universal questions that were once asked by geographers but have since been neglected. By uniting the subject, geography will again be able to speak with authority across a variety of disciplines and have its voice hear again. Perhaps the fact that a geographer is now at the head of the UK government is a sign that this remedy is working. Many argue that different aspects of geography can be addressed by a variety of subjects and as such the subject is obsolete. It is equally as important, however, to recognise that by unifying geography, you create a subject with such a broad skill set that encompasses both humanities and scientific aspects and as such has the power to create global scale change on issues such as the generational problem of world hunger. Similarly there is also a call for a movement away from mere description, and instead a move towards a geography that explains and solves.
The need for unification can be highlighted through analysis of anthropological climate change – affecting both physical and human aspects of climate change. The hockey stick graph (Mann et. Al, 1999) portrays anomalous readings over the last 100 years, correlating directly with the rise in CO2 emissions attributed to the industrial revolution. This has had its effects both physically in areas such as climatology – through rising temperatures shown by the rise in the average global temperature by 0.8°celsius since the 1880’s (Hansen et. Al 2010, NASA)– and oceanography – as sea levels rise and oceanic habitats are distorted, such as coral reefs which experience bleaching, increased sedimentation and more acidic ocean waters – factors which have contributed to the loss of 50% of the Caribbean coral reefs in 2005 (NOAA, 2017).
The conclusions Stoddart draws upon are influenced quite clearly by his career and the academic work of his peers referenced within the lecture. As a coral reef specialist, Stoddart led a variety of expeditions and in the majority of these he promoted cooperation between a variety of specialists (P.Haggett, Guardian 2014). In these expeditions, Stoddart explicitly saw the success that interdisciplinary relations can bring and this undoubtedly fuelled the conclusions drawn from this lecture despite his background as a specialist physical geographer. Perhaps another tenuous link supporting his thesis of uniting the subject