Question

Who differenciated between general and regional geography

Answer 1

This dichotomy between ‘general’ and ‘regional’ was first raised by Bernhard Varen (also known as Varenius) in the 17th century.

Varenius, who published Geographia Generalis in 1650, recognised general geography as a sub-discipline which formulates general laws, generic laws and principles. In later periods, general geography came to be known as systematic geography as it derived knowledge from other systematic disciplines for formulating universal and generic ideas. General geography considers the whole world as a unit whereas regional geography deals with the description of particular regions or countries.

Alexander von Humboldt, the father of modern geography, categorised the discipline into geography and uranography. He described uranography as ‘descriptive astronomy’ while geography, according to him, was concerned with the interrelationship of phenomena found together in an area.

Richthofen considered regional geography to be descriptive, where it would depict the salient features of a region. Thus a homogenous pattern would evolve in a region. According to him, general geography studies the spatial distribution of geographical features.

Before the advent of Ratzel, systematic geography was founded by Humboldt, while Ritter founded regional geography. After Ratzel, Hettner viewed geography as an idiographic (regional) rather than monothetic (general) discipline.

Ratzel’s approach was deductive. He was concerned with the genesis of things, not their relationship and interdependence. Ratzel applied the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest to human societies.

Vidal de Lablache rejected Ratzel and argued in favour of specific studies (pays). Thus Vidal was in favour of regional geography. Vidal propounded the principle of ‘terrestrial whole’.

After the loss of popularity of regional geography, three separate branches—’general geography, compage regional geography and descriptive geography—have emerged. Berry does not consider any conflict exists between regional and general geography because they lie at the two extremes of a continuum rather than being different approaches. Thus the two concepts are interpenetrative in nature.

During the 1980s and the 1990s, the major concerns were as follows:

i. A little attempt to emphasise on the epistemology of observation.

ii. A new trend in regional geography dealing more with social structure, customs etc., making regional geography rather abstract.

iii. An argument by some regional geographers that modern traditions eliminate spatial differences, encouraging other modes of explanation such as ‘cognitive mapping”, to map hyperspace and the culture of post­modernism in the western world, for example.

Answer 2

hey buddy
here ur answer

Physical geography is that branch of natural science which deals with the study of processes and patterns in the natural environment like the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and geosphere, as opposed to the cultural or built environment, the domain of human geography.

Regional geography is a major branch of geography. It focuses on the interaction of different cultural and natural geofactors in a specific land or landscape, while its counterpart, systematic geography, concentrates on a specific geofactor at the global level. 

hope it help u