GeoJoumal7.

2 139-143/1983 t39
© AkademischeVerlagsgeseHschaft- Wiesbaden

S p a c e in G e o g r a p h y

Mazt~r, E., Prof., RNDr., DrSc. and Urbanek, J., RNDr., CSc., Institute og Geo-
graphy, Slovak Academy of Sciences, nl. Obrancov miero 49, CS-886 25 Bratislava,
Czechoslovakia

Abstract: The concept of "space" is one of the most fundamental of geographical concepts.
There is no work in geography taht does not certain it. Nevertheless, geography has not as
yet formulated an explicit and unambiguous definition of geographical space. This fact has
had negative consequences forgeographical theory, methodology and application. In the effort
of contributing to its elimination we will try to outline the basic connotations of the concept.
The concept of 'geographical space" is a relational one. It acquires meaning and sense
only when related to other concepts. The concept of "space" may be conceived as a supple-
ment to things, i.e. substantively conceived objects. Space conceived in this way is the synonym
of emptiness. The concept of "space" may be also conceived in relation ti individual landscape
elements as their 'environments". Space conceived in this way has the character of a field of
force. And, finally, space may be conceived also with respect to the totality of landscape ele-
ments, i.e. the system expressed by the term "synergic". It is only this third variant of space
which should be understood as the "geographical space" in the full menaing of the term. It
is only this conception of geographical space as the space filled with qualities in relations and
proportions that is considered as one of the basic prerequisites for the formulation of the
theory of geography as science capable of prediction and thus also of practical utilization.

Introduction Because geography has not clearly defined "geographi-

Perhaps no other term of geography is as frequently dealth
with as space. It may be found in practically every defini-
tion of the subject of geography from its birth in antiquity
up to the present times and it is present in almost any work
on geography either implicitly for, and more frequently, ex-
plicitly. This high frequency of reference to the spatial
aspect is a reflection of its relevance for geography; it is one
of the basic prerequisites for its existence as science. In
spite of this longstanding tradition and it importance for
geography, the interpretations of the concept of space
considerably vary. Different interpretations of space are
projected into theory and methodology of geography,
causing numerous theoretical and methodological errors
and misunderstandings. And not only that differences
between geographical interpretations of space or, more
specifically, "geographical space" may even reduce the
value of geographical research for practical utilization.
cal or landscape space'; geographical spatial thinking seems
to oscillate between two poles. One of these is represented
by the concept of absolute space, the other one by the con-
cept of relative space. The concept of geographical space
is shaped under the influence of both these poles. We will
try to illustrate this statement.
Absolute Space
The concept of "absolute space" originated in classical
mechanics or Euclidean geometry. Absolute space is an
empty space. This concept embodies the idea of empti-
ness, and the idea of absence of any object. Such space is
qualitatively empty, immobile, homogenous. It may be
arbitrarily subdivided into areas. The unified division may
be carried out using a constant scale (Harvey 1970, Reichen-
140
bach 1957, Wartofsky 1968). In geography absolute space
is represented with relative precision by the system of
topographical coordinates. First accurate ideas about this
system were developed by the ancient Greeks. In the period
of the great discoveries it extended to cover the entire earth
surface. The development of this system, in its basic out-
lines, was brought to an end with the definition of the
meter. This coordinate system unambigously and precisely
divides geographical space. The location of any point on
the surface of earth may be precisely determined by the
figures which express relationships between the given point
and the system of coordinates.
Absolute space as a synoym of emptiness is, in itself,
of no special importance to geography. It acquires impor-
tance only in relation to the things placed "within the space"
like in an empty container. In geography we thus deal with
the classical form of spatial thinking, based on the pair of
categories i.e. on the category of "space" and on the cate-
gory of "thing". We may speak about the generation of the
ideas of space according to the "scheme of the things"
(K6rner 1966). The "scheme of the things" consists of the
distinction between two groups of individuals. The first
group includes mobile things. They are the only carriers of
qualities. The second group is represented by qualitatively
empty immobile spatial areas. The spatial areas may be
distinguished according to whether they are occupied by
the things or not. The things carry qualities of two t y p e s -
spatial and non-spatial. Two types of qualities correpond
to two types of movements. The scheme of the things
has a distinct dichotomous structure. The thing and the
space are - under this scheme - c o m p l e t e l y independent
categories. From our point of view it is important that this
scheme implies a passive behaviour of space with respect
to things. During their movement within the space, things
retain their indenty. Their qualities are independent of the
location. The space of the scheme is independent on the
thingsit contains, it is absolute. According to S. K6rner, the
scheme of things is a clear anticipation of classical mecha-
nics. The scheme of things may be relatively easily conver-
ted into the language of geography. Spatial areas of the
scheme correspond well to the areas delimited by means
of topographic coordinates. Rocks, soil, water, organism
etc., may be interpreted as "the things", as objects made
up of various substances. The landscape space interpreted
in this way i.e. in contrast to the things is absolute space.
The localization of the things - landscape elements - in
space may be expressed only in abstract terms, by means
of figures. It is this localization which determines the posi-
tion of a given object without suggesting its quality. It is
this localization which consequently keeps the relationship
between the position and the nature of objects contained
within the landscape space unexpressed. If such relationship
were indicated, landscape space would lose its character of
absolute, passive space.
GeoJoumal 7.2/1983
We have outlined, in a relatively simplified form, one
of the methods used in the generation of the ideas of space
in geography. This classical method of concept generation
began when the need arose for the measurement and par-
celling of the landscape when the first administrative units
were formed. This way of spatial thinking has survived up
to the present. Modern geography also requires an abstract
localization of landscape elements. However, classical spa-
tial thinking was not the only solution. There always
existed parallel methods of thinking, based on the concept
of relative space. In relation to such spatial ideas, classical
spatial thinking is only in an early elementary form.
The concept of geographical space was subject to an
adverse influence from developing classificaf mechanics.
Classical mechanics formulated the concept of absolute
space which was considered, for a long time to come, as the
only variant of the concept of "space". The intellectual cli-
mate, wholly dominated ba the classifical mechnics, was
not a suitable framework for the formulation of a concept
of space which would be in obvious contradiction to the
generally accepted concept of absolute space. In this situa-
tion, the elementary idea considering geographical space
as absolute space tended to be accepted as the final idea.
Under such conditions geography made no attempt at for-
mulating a more adequate concept of the landscape space.
The concept of absolute space became for many years
an indisputed fact. Even this generation has automatically
identified the concept of "space" with that of absolute
space (Harbey 1970). As a result of this tradition, geographi-
cal space lives in the consciousness of the lay public often
only in the form of absolute space.
Geographical localization generally implies only an
abstract localization of landscape elements. Such super-
ficial understanding of geographical space engenders a
number of errors and mistakes also in practice and thus
leads to irrational land uses.
Relative Space
Parellel to the idea of landscape space as absolute space
there exists in geography also the idea of relative landscape
space. According this idea landscape space is "something
more" than qualitatively empty, passice space. This "some-
thing mote" was originally conceived only intuitively. Only
later did it lead to various conceptions of space and only
much later to the concept of geographic, or lanscape space.
Already in the thinking of people and enthnic groups
for whom we cannot speak of science even in its most ele-
mentary manifestation, landscape space is understood as
something more than just emptiness. It is differentiated
rather than homogenous. Rather than being passive, it
affects the things it contains, arranging them into certain
spatial structures. Its effects on things are similar to a fie/d
of force (L~vi-Strauss 1966, Gurevitch 1978).
 GeoJoumal 7.2/1983
Landscape space conceived as a field of force, is found
in the ideas of the ancient Greeks. Ptolemy constructed
zones. These zones had the character of spatial formations
defined by the occurence of objects of given qualities. The
existence of a very strong bond is assumed between nature
and the position of landscape elements. Consequently, the
position (location) of the element may be derived from its
nature (Vidal de la Blache 1896). Ptolemy had, in a way,
suggested the geographical determinism of later periods.
Geographical determinism constitutes a culmination of the
intuitive conception of landscape space as a field of force.
The existence of such a field is generally acknowledged.
Little is known, however, of its mechanism, mode and
forms of operation. This more or less intuitive knowledge
of landscape space regretfully led to extremes and simpli-
fications. Errorsof geographical determinism made the lands-
cape space a "taboo' for a relatively long period. This dis-
credited concept shifted completely as a focus and ceased
to function as a unifying principle. Geograpgy became diffe-
rentiated into a bariety of relatively narrowly specialized
disciplines which drifted along in relative isolation from one
another. This process - the atomization o f geograpb,v - has
persisted, perhaps, up to the present time (Mazt~r 1968).
Specialized geographical disciplines, and certain natural
and social sciences devoted to the study of individual lands-
cape elements, also formulate ideas of space. They produce
concepts which markedly differ from absolute space. The
development of these disciplines brings about improvements
in the accuracy and adequacy of ideas of space. Unfortuna-
tely, the concept of space formulated within these discipli-
nes is only rarely given any concentrated attention and, as a
result, it is usually not explicitly defined. Consequently, the
fact that a number of disciplines devoted to the study of
Landscape elements formulate different variants of non-
classical, relative space tends to remain undisclosed.
Different concepts of space are formed within disci-
plines that study individual landscape elements. It seems,
however, that many of them have a common structure. The
concept of space is always relational. Therefore, there exists
the possibility of conceiving it always in relation to indivi-
dual elements of landscape - the elements studied by indivi-
dual disciplines. Thus, for example, geology formulates the
concept of space in relation to rocks, pedology in relation
to soil, etc. Because the concept of space seems to be centred
"around" one landscape element, we might speak about
monocentrics spaces. The method of concept generation is
based on categories that differ from the classical spatial
thinking. Instead of the scheme of the things, it uses another
scheme. It might be called the scheme o f the things/n the
field (S. K6rner 1966). This scheme distinguishes two cate-
gories - the category of the thing and the category of the
space - field. Under such scheme, things are not the only
carries of qualities. In addition to these qualities are also
carried by spatial areas regardless of their presence or ab-
t 41
sence of things in them. The thing located in a given spatial
area thus participates in the qualities of the respective areas.
It means that the given group of qualities of the thing will
result from its presence in the given spatial area. The change
in position will entail a change in some qualities of the
thing. The scheme no longer recognizes the dichotomy
between the thing and space, so typical in the classical
scheme of the things. Within the context of the things in
the field, both the thing and the space acquire non-classical
features and the differences between these categories are no
longer insurmountable.
The mode of spatial thinking based on the scheme of
the things in the field is used quite frequently not only in
the specialized natural sciences, but also in individual
branches of geography. Thus, for a geomorphologist, surface
shapes may have the function of things within the above
mentioned scheme. Different climatic conditions, varying
properties of rocks, etc. may be considered as qualities
pertaining to different spatial areas. Spatial areas delimited
in this way then appear as the field of force in relation to
surface shapes or as the environment which affects the
qualities of surface shapes. The qualities of surface shapes
willbe a function of their position. The relationship which
determines the bond between nature and position of surface
shapes may be designated as their qualitative localization.
This localization of surface shapes in no way contradicts
to their abstract localization, representing only a deeper
and more adequate from of localization. A similar relational
mode may be used for the creation ofmonocentric spaces -
fields also in other disciplines devoted to the study of indi-
vidual landscape elements. This orientation has been pur-
sued with the greatest success by ecology with its concept
of space centred on organism.
Modern geography offers one more mode of non-classi-
cal spatial thinling, based on a relatively simple categoric
premise, the scheme o f the fields. Reflections of this type
omit the category of the thing as irrelevant. They focus
only on definite, often quantified, qualities or relations
which are localized within definite spatial areas. Space is
then represented by the network of bonds between spatial
areas determined in this amnner. An example of such space
or field devoid of the things may be provided by the field
created by the atmospheric pressure. Other influences of
such spaces are contained within the concept of the network
(Hagget, Chloley 1969, Harvey 1970). They are common
especially in economic geography and regional sciences.
Monocentric spaces based on the relation between land-
scape element and its environment stress mainly the depen-
dency of the given landscape element on space, on its envi-
ronment. Opposite to tjis, the monocentric spaces - n e t -
works put a greater emphasis on the autonomy of indivi-
dual landscape elements, i.e. their ability to create certain
spatial structure which reflect the nature of the given ele-
ment.
142
Monocentric spaces have one feature in common. They
are conceived in relation to only one landscape element.
The concept of landscape space cannot be conceived in this
way. We cannot ignore the fact that the landscape space
does not embody isolated landscape elements, but elements
unified into a certain system. (Armand 1975, Mazdr 1968,
Neef 1967, Schmithiisen 1976, SoiSava 1978). The concept
of "landscape space" may be formulated only in relation to
the totality of landscape system. Inspite of this, the mono-
centric spaces indicate the way leading to the concept of
"landscape space". They represent a marked deviation
traditional spatial ideas. "The scheme of things" is being
gradually replaced by "the scheme of things in the field"
and finally by "the scheme of field". The category of a
thing, which led the spatial thinking in geography into shal-
low classical positions, is veing gradually replaced by a cate-
gory of quality and relationship. (Urb~nek, Mazdr, Drdog
1980). This means abandoning the practice of "en bloc"
consideration of things, i.e. as an unbreakable aggregate of
qualities, and starting to sonsicder individual qualities,
namely those that interact within the landscape system.
The concept of "landscape space" may be formulated
using the scheme of the field.
We will try ti illustrate how such a concept may be
constructed. Individual points or spatial areas may be assig-
ned different qualities. From the point of view of landscape
space, however, not all the qualities are relevant. Individual
spatial areas must be assigned qualities expressing the total-
lity of landscape. These are the synergic qualities, i.e. quali-
ties that are used to name the network ofsynergic bonds in
the given area (Neef 1967, Schmithiisen 1976).
Such qualities are e.g. "karst", "fluvial plain", "hilly
loess land", "urban agglomeration", "rural Landscape", etc.
Denomination of this type may imply relatively well defined
bonds by the qualities, rocks, surface shapes, soil, vegeta-
tion, form of economy and other landscape elements. These
elementary spatial areas, i.e. areas ascribed by synergic quali-
ties form a varied spatial mosaic. Individual elementary
areas are not, however, isolated. They are interconnected
by numerous spatial relations. Numerous network unify
them into different spatial, i.e. chorological systems. Each
chorological system has got relative autonomy, it behaves
like an individual. In despite of this autonomy, individual
chorological systems are not isolated. They are unified by
spatial relations into chorological systems of higher order.
The complicated hierarchicd structure is created in this
way.
Within landscape space conceived in the above way the
differences between higher and lower levels of the hierar-
chical structure are important. They mean differences be-
tween the system (chorological system of a higher order)
and its elements (chorological systems of the lower order).
GeoJoumal 7.2/1983
These differences can also be interpreted as a contradiction
between the totality of chorological system of a certain
order and the autonomy of its elements. The autonomy of
chorological systems can be expressed as "emergent quality".
The differences between higher and lower levels of the hier-
archical order can be regarded as hte contradiction between
the continuum and discontinuum. Landscape space concei-
ved in this way has got the character of structured conti-
nuum.
Landscape space conceived as a hierarchical order of
chorological systems is not a static framework. The bonds
between spatial areas are changing (Mazt~r, Drdog', Urb~nek,
1980). The rhythm of the change differs from place to"
place and from one hierarchical level to another hierarchi-
cal level.
Conclusion
Our brief reflections over the problems of geographical
space should be viewed more as problem-raising than prob-
lemsolving. We have tried to show that the concept of space
is important for geograhpy only as a realtion concept. It
acquires meaning and significance only in relation to other
concepts and may thus adopt several forms. In relation to
the things (as their supplement) it acwuires the character of
a qualitive emptiness, abstract absolute space. In this form
it represents the elementary form of geographical space.
In relation to individual landscape elements space be-
comes the carrier of certain qualities and influences. Various
relative spaces maybe thus conceived, the character of which
depends on the element under consideration. Neither these
individual spaces nor their sum be called geographical space
in the full meaning of the term.
Space may also be interpreted in relation to the totality
of landscape elements, to the whole expressed by the term
"synergic system 's. Within this realtionship, geograhpical
space is not an empty one, it is a full space. However, it is
not "filled" with things - objects conceived substantively;
rather, it is "fil led" with qualities given by interrelationships
of elements of the landscape system and expressed by its
structure. The concept of "geographical space" without a
linkage to the "synergic system" loses its meaning. The
"geographical space" as conceived here is a dynamic for-
mation changing "over time".
In view of the fact that tha concept of "geographical
space" is involved in all fundamental problems of geography,
it seems to be highly topical to work out the conception of
geographical space at a substantially more adequate and
exact level than before. This task is one of the crucial tasks
to be solved by the IGU Working Group on "geographical
syntheses".
GeoJoumal 7.2/1983
References
Armand, D.L.: Nauka o landschafte. Moskva, Mysl 1975.
Gurevi~', A.J.: Kateg6rie stredovekej kultdry. Praha, Mlada fronta
1978.
Haggett, P., Chorley, R.J.: Network Analysis in Geography. London,
E. Arnold 1969.
Harvey, D.: Explanation in Geography. London, E. Arnold 1970.
KSrner, S.: Experience and Theory. New York, Jumanity press 1966.
L6vi-Strauss: La pensu~ sauvage.Paris, Libraire Plon 1962.
MazL~r, E.: Geography of Today and Its Perspectives. Geografick~
~'asopis20, 3,201-212 (1968)
Mazt~r, E., Drdo~, J., Urb&nek, J.: Geography and the Changing
World. Geografick,2 dasopis32, 2-3, 97--I 08 (1980)
143
Neef, E.: Die theoretischen Orundlagen der Landschaftslehre. Leip-
zig, Gotha 1967.
Reichenbach, H.: The Philosophy of Space and Time. New York,
Dover 1957.
SchmithiJsen, J.: Grundlagen der Landschaftskunde. AIIgemeine
Geosynergetik. Berlin-New York, Walter de Gruyter 1976.
Sodava, V.B.: Vedenije v u~'enije o geosistemach. Novosibirsk 1978.
Urb~!nek, J., Mazt~r, E., Drdo~', J.: The Search for the New way of
the Landscape Study. Geografick,2 ~asopis 32, 2-3, 108-119
(1980)
Vidal de la Blache: Das Prinzip der Allgemeinen Geographie. In:
Wege der Forschung, Band CCIC, Darmstadt 1975.
Wartofsky, M.W.: Conceptual Foundation of Scientific Thought.
New York-London, Macmillan 1968.