GEOGRAPHY IN A TOPSY-TURVY WORLD1

Stanley D. Brunn2

Department of Geography

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY  40506-0027  email: Brunn@pop.uky.edu

 

ABSTRACT. Many of our hometowns, capital cities, and states are experiencing major and unexpected changes brought about by recent advances in information and communication technologies, global economies, new geopolitical alignments, and the transnational movements of new diasporas.  A “topsy-turvy” world is the result. These changes are affecting individual and group identities and the places we work, shop, recreate and worship, the schools our children attend, and the policies our governments develop.  New faces, cultural landscapes, belief systems, gender roles, lifestyles, and social institutions are affecting formerly isolated rural areas and highly networked regions.  It is the speed and unpredicted character of these changes that are affecting human interaction and organization.  Examples include how new Asian diasporas are affecting Europeanized areas and how the new “worlds” of the Internet challenge our thinking about identity, interaction, community, boundaries, privacy, and the role of government.  Geographers need to be in the forefront of examining what is happening to places, landscapes, regions, and environments, to consider innovative ways to map these new worlds, and to increase our shared knowledge with other disciplines and paradigms.   Key Words: information and communication technologies, identity, globalization, uneven development, Internet geographies, futuristic mapping.

 

How do you look at the worlds around you?  Your hometown, your state, your country?  What gives you meaning and an understanding of the worlds around you?  Music? Humor? Children? Plant and Animal Ecosystems? Numbers? Words? Colors? Photographs? Maps?  Or is it something about places, landscapes, and environments?  How we look at the world and what makes “sense” to us tells us much about who we are and how we relate to others.

Geography provides for many of us an understanding of the worlds at our feet, our neighborhoods, our country and the world.  Geography is about spaces and places that are seen and unseen, close by and distant, colorful and colorless, virtual and real, spiritual and mystical.  Probably all humans, whether professional geographers or “hobby” geographers,” share some of these curiosities and views.  We think about familiar and unfamiliar places we live in, work in, have fun, travel through, explore, celebrate, and worship.  These geographic “anchors” help me understand the worlds around us.  I also realize that there are professionals and amateurs in other fields who find comfort and meaning in the world through sounds, the visual, geometry, words, nature, and human/spirit interfaces.  These senses and experiences contribute to our collective understanding about why things are the way they are. 

In this essay on challenges facing geography in the early twenty-first century, I want to focus on one concept, viz., a Topsy-Turvy World.  My thesis is that much of what we know and the way we learned about places, spaces, and worlds at individual, community, nation, and global scales is changing rapidly and in some unexpected ways.  In short, we are living in a “topsy-turvy” world.  If it is not a world that is upside down, then is certainly somewhat askew from what we thought it would be. Some changes may be pleasant and unpleasant, peaceful and violent, orderly and chaotic; others may be predicted and unpredicted, beautiful and ugly, and still others desired and unwanted.  Below I want to first examine some of the causes of these “topsy” worlds, next some salient features, including some thoughts on future mapping.  I conclude by suggesting some challenges and opportunities facing geographers in coming decades.

 

What are the causes of a Topsy-Turvy World?

 

Occasionally there are significant single or multiple related events that bring about major changes in the way we think, behave, and live.  These events contribute to a world having a “topsy-turvy” character.  These may be the end of prolonged wars, agreement on the global recognition of significant problems, major legal and court decisions, major rethinking about a topic, such as the environment or the voices of oppressed and disenfranchised people; the outbreak or cure of a major disease; or the diffusion of a major technological innovation.   In this context, I believe the world experienced a topsy-turvy nature with the making and use of the atom bomb to end World War II, the geopolitics of the Cold War and the erection of the Berlin Wall, the launching of Sputnik and other satellites in the late 1950s, the emergence of decolonized worlds in the 1960s, the gender and ecological movements of the 1970s, the agony of the Vietnam War, the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear accidents, the end of the Cold War and the simultaneous opening of closed spaces and minds in the early 1990s, and a series of technological advances, including the introduction of the computer into the home and office and the very rapid global diffusion of Internet technologies (WWW and email) during the last five years.   Each of these developments affected the way many on the planet think about places and peoples, what we as geographers consider important to teach, how states look at the world, how organizations and corporations conduct their business, and how we as individuals relate to one another.  Many countries have also experienced these dynamic changes, including South Africa after apartheid, the Israelis and Palestinians, and the Russians, Chinese, and Germans (unified Germany).  Some countries can expect experience unexpected changes, for example, when violent acts between Catholics and Protestants stop in Northern Ireland, and when India and Pakistan settle their dispute over Kashmir.  We know that the “world” was definitely a different place for citizens, corporations, stock markets, the media, the military, the military and governments (all major actors on the world scene) when European countries granted independence to territorial possessions in Africa and Asia, when the Cold War ended, and when Internet technologies affected personal and world communications, diplomatic relations, consumer behaviors, and national identities.  The significance of these major “watershed” events in recent human history is significant for those living in small towns, world cities, transborder regions, and the world community.

 

Attributes of a Topsy-Turvy World

 

It is not difficult to identify a number of examples of these dynamic and unexpected worlds.  Those examples are based on the kinds of geography training we had, our experiences inside and outside the classroom, travels and contacts with friends in different places, landscapes, and cultures, and our appreciation of scholarly inquiries by colleagues in the social, policy and natural sciences and the humanities.  What is important is to consider what these “topsy” worlds look like, what they mean, and how we might map them?  Permit me to discuss five features of these worlds.

 

Your hometown – not the same anymore

 

Consider your hometown, whether it has 500 people, or 250,000, or a half million people.  I expect there are some changes occurring that are much different from when your mother or father or grandparents lived there.  If the town is in a rural or agricultural setting, how do most people make a living today?  The same way their parents did?  Subsistence farming in many developing countries has a different “dynamic” today than twenty years ago.  The same is true for plantation economies or productive crop/livestock systems.  Families whose sole livelihood today is derived from producing items for a local market are becoming a rarity in many rich agricultural areas.  Workers are producing items for sale in distant markets.  For example, fresh vegetables and cut flowers are flown regularly to major cities in Europe and the U. S.  Cocaine produced in rural Mexico and in isolated and highland areas of the northern Andes is shipped to the same regions.  Agricultural production, whether for export markets or demands of a regional tourist economy, is in the hands of transnational corporations headquartered in Europe, Asia, or North America.  The new power elites in South America control drug, tourist, media, and entertainment markets, not luxury plantation crops, minerals, on household products.  Local economies have contacts with national and global companies.  The local farmer is more likely to see her/her product consumed half a world away.  In large cities, the service sector is growing.  This includes both informal economies as well as those in construction, entertainment, health care, tourism, high tech, and government sectors.  These are the new “faces” of small towns, regional centers, major ports, and capital cites.  Many workers will travel long distances to work, for low pay and high paying jobs, for work that is meaningful and, unfortunately for some, meaningless.

There are also likely to be some major changes of residents as well.  In small towns and cities there are generations who grew up in the same place.  Sons and daughters of lifelong residents had their grandchildren attend the same school.  In short, “everyone knew everyone.”  And friends came from the same or similar ethnic backgrounds and went to the same churches. Future marriage partners often went to the same schools.  Intermarriage included those of Iberian, African, Asian, and Indian roots, but also between Japanese and Creole, Mestizos and Hindustanis, German and Italian Argentines.  But now there are new Evangelical Protestants and Moslems, Americans and Chinese in communities.  We also find a growing number of elderly people, not only aging in place, but also moving in with family members for their remaining years.  In parts of rural areas North America there are small towns with a high proportion of elderly women.  Men have died, so it is women who patronize the shops, attend churches, use the social services, reside in nursing homes, and are the political leaders.  They live not on agricultural incomes (some might), but on transfer payments from the state or children who work elsewhere. 

In medium sized and large cities there are also major changes in the social fabric.  New groups appear that were not part of the social mix previously.  They come with foreign investment, construction crews, new university exchanges, missionary groups, and diplomatic missions (Brunn 1996; Zeigler and Brunn 2000).  These new “layers” are most observable in major coastal, airport, and capital cities.  There are new places of worship, new restaurants, cybercafes, and new languages, hairstyles, fashions and vocabularies.  These “layers” may be political and economic refugees fleeing conflict in neighboring countries or new immigrants from East and Southeast Asia, West Africa, or Southeast Europe.  In the United States there is a growing “Hispanization” of the Middle West, not only those working in the fields and in meat packing plants, but in low wage service jobs in major cities.  Many “aging” U.S. communities face a labor shortage of white males and females.  Refugees have different origins; some from Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras; others from Bosnia, Kosovo, Romania, Ukraine, and Russia, and still others from Vietnam, Laos, Philippines, all countries that had few refugees coming to the U.S. previously (McKee 2000).  These “new Americans” have children in elementary and high schools; they are on athletic teams, in music programs, and are scholarship winners. Some parents are employed in factory jobs, while others are physicians, dentists, educators, clergy, and architects. 

These economic and demographic shifts are occurring elsewhere in the rich world and rich “islands” (cities) in the developing world, with different “mixes” of peoples, religions, languages, and lifestyles (Blakey and Snyder 1999).  For some long-time residents these newcomers are welcome, for others they are sources of conflict and require some adjustment on the part of younger and older generations.  Contrasts are acute between university, political, banking, and tourist centers and those where there have been few changes in the economy and labor force.

 

Identity — Who are you and what does it mean?

 

This may seem like an easy question, but it is not today, precisely because it has many different meanings to individuals and groups.  When most of us are asked, “who we are?” we would provide a place reference and something about our heritage.  For example, someone might acknowledge: “I am Chilean or Japanese Peruvian or Croat Argentine or Irish-Castilian Chilean.”  Some might even acknowledge they are mestizo, ladino, and zambo.  A legitimate question to ask: What exactly is a Brazilian or a Surinamese or an East Indian or a Creole?  What criteria does someone use to adopt a particular country or nationality label?  Is it years of residence in one place, the place of one’s birth, or affection for a given locale?  For some people, identity labels are very important.  For displaced Asians, Hispanics or Africans, these are not easy questions.  Sometimes identity questions bring to the fore feelings of alienation, inner conflict and a yearning for a homeland they cannot return (Anderson 1983).  In southeast Europe, what is a Bosnian, a Serb, a Slovene?  In the eastern Mediterranean, what is an Israeli, a Jew, a Palestinian, a Syrian, a Kurd?  Conflicts emerge and persist over identities.  Wars are still fought over identity.  “What one is” can become a matter of life and death.  The information on one’s passport (a state document) will reveal something about identity and political labeling.  But that is only one identity label.  One might decide to declare, “I am a Mestizo or Creole” to avoid being in the minority and because “I want to maintain my position of privilege and also ensure my children can attend a certain school.”  More than one person I have talked with in Southeast Europe admits to multiple, complex and confusing identities.  Social segregation that is based on “labels” or stereotypes acceptable by the majority or those in power can also lead to spatial segregation and ghettoization.  The result may be a residential landscape where people “live together separately,” a phrase coined by an Israeli geographer Michael Romann to describe mixed Jerusalem neighborhoods (Romann and Weingrad 1991).  Does this same concept also apply in Central and South American cities?  It does in America.

In the late 19th and for much of the 20th century Europeanized whites wrote and talked much about race.  Race was an important label used to differentiate (again, differences) one group from another and reflect superiority.  The state, universities, and missionaries aided this thinking.   Certain distinguishing physical features, and especially skin color, were used.  But very often skin color and dominant facial features led to some real dilemmas on the part of  whites wanting to differentiate themselves from those with multiple “national” origins.  In a South American context, how prevalent is the social favoritism attached to those with lighter skin color, Iberian surnames, and “pure” accents?   

Many social scientists, political leaders, and citizens still use the word “race” today, even though it is a very controversial term and one that should be removed from our vocabularies.  “Whiteness” has become a field of inquiry among social theorists (Wray and Newitz 1997; Roediger 1998; Bonnett 2000).  But removing favored and such powerful words from science and policy discussions is not easy, including the use of such labels in government censuses.  Many people would probably have difficulty deciding into what “category” their heritage fits.  In the U.S. census in spring 2000, for the first time individuals could identify themselves as belonging to more than one broad category, for example, Asian, African, European, Pacific Islander, etc.  These results will tell us about the numbers and identities of Americans.  It is estimated that by 2050 about one-half the U.S. population will be non-Hispanic white.  And already parts of California, South Florida and South Texas have majority non-Anglo white populations. These changes are reflected in the nation’s schools, suburbs, marketplace, and politics?

One final point about our identity and emerging scientific findings. Those demographers and population geographers who study early, contemporary and future migrations and diasporas may have to revise many traditional models about population origins and mixing.  That is, who moved from where to where?   The “geography” of DNA data (Project Genome) will likely demonstrate that biologically our ancestors are much more similar than we were taught (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).   Consider the earliest migrations of Northeast Asians into western North and South America, and those West Africans moving into the American South, the Caribbean, and northern and eastern South America.  And think about those nineteenth and twentieth migrations we labeled as Irish or German or Italian or Chinese, which are really “national” migration population labels.  Nationalities are in reality social labels and constructs.  As states and families reinterpret their formal and informal histories, some re-interpretations of formal and informal history may be part of the unsettling topsy-turvy world (Buttimer, Brunn, and Wardenga 1999).  

 

A Schizoid State World – What is happening to the state?

 

The world political map, or a map showing the world’s states, is constantly changing.  Even if the international border remains the same, what happens within those borders and across those borders is significant.   A distinguishing feature on this world map is the basic political unit in international relations, viz., the state.  What is happening to the state? I would submit that the state is simultaneously both loosing its importance and also is gaining in importance (Brunn et al., forthcoming).

The state is one of the very important institutions in the life of humans and other living beings.  Decisions made by the state affect our daily lives.  Each state contains many “politically organized spaces.” Our local, state, and national spaces contain many administrative spaces and boundaries that affect our rights, representation, and quality of life.  States have subnational or regional or district scales of government and administration, including for water, police, fire, judicial, schools, taxes, air and water control, transportation, law enforcement, recreation, agriculture, and public health.  And states have regional and national assemblies and districts for city council members. States also collect taxes from regions and allocate federal monies to specific cities and districts for industrial investment, tourism development, disaster relief, education, disease eradication, military operations, and a variety of social programs, including for the homeless, empowerment of women, and children living in poverty (Seager 1997).  We all live in “bounded spaces” and they are important in the kinds of “rights” and “benefits” and “representation” residents have (Rowles 1978).  Some countries provide multiple freedoms for women (voting, holding political office, property ownership); others restrict them. The same is true for children, refugees, and gays.  Favored regions in many countries are university and political centers, not only because of higher incomes and more tolerant social environments, but because they have better health care, education, and welfare programs.   What makes boundaries more important in a world is that there are women and men who will move, often at great risk, to a new country, for greater employment, higher pay, better life for children, and personal safety. 

There are nearly 190 states on the world political map.  Two developments are occurring simultaneously.  One trend is the erosion of political boundaries between states.  A very good example is the EU or European Union, where regional integration efforts during the past fifty years have meant the international boundaries pose fewer barriers to human interaction and commerce.  If one travels through much of West Europe, one does not even know one crosses a boundary.  To a lesser extent one can also see the erosion of boundaries to human and economic interaction between the U.S. and Canada.  NAFTA has facilitated the movement of products, people, and money between the U.S. and Mexico and Canada and Mexico.   Other anticipated trade pacts and unions in East Asia and the Pacific Rim, Southeast Asia (ASEAN), South America (Mercosur), and the Caribbean will reduce the international borders as barriers.

While devolution is one marked phenomenon on the contemporary world political map, another is the emergence of new states, some from old states.  Consider the fifteen former republics of the Soviet Union.  Some “new states” were actually independent states before the USSR gobbled them up before World War Two.  Examples include the former Baltic republics, Ukraine, and those in the Caucasus.  But since the early 1990s, many of these have become independent, at least formally.  The USSR no longer exists and Russia itself has a different size, shape, and population.  And there are some entirely new states appeared on the map: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan in Central Asia are examples.  Bosnia, Slovenia, and Croatia emerged from former Yugoslavia.  And Eritrea separated from Ethiopia; East Timor regained its autonomy from Indonesia; and Kosovo sought independence from Serbia.

Political changes will continue on all continents, with new states and economic unions appearing.  Some changes may emerge from peaceful negotiations, others only after prolonged bloody conflicts.  It is not impossible to expect that there will soon be a new state of Palestine, for the Tamils in northern Sri Lanka, and separate states in northern and southern Sudan?  And what about Quebec, Eskadi (the Basque area of northern Spain), the Malukus, Ache, West Irian in Indonesia; and Xijiang (Tibet) and Xinjiang in China; Kashmir; and Chechnya, Baskhortostan, and Yakutia in Russia?  Large territorial states, including Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Congo, Sudan, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, United Kingdom, the U.S. and Australia will almost assuredly see calls for greater autonomy among marginalized peoples who live in peripheral regions and who are far from major centers of current political and economic power.  Regionalism is a dominant feature in many of these countries and often a precursor to calls for greater autonomy.  (Might be wise to invest in companies producing atlases and flags.)   It is worth nothing that (a) the final political map of any region has yet to be drawn, (b) transnational corporations (a handful more powerful than a hundred states), are playing a greater role in world affairs than previously, and (c) NGOs (environmental, human rights, religious, education) will also play ever greater roles in international affairs this century (Brunn 1998; Edwards 2001).

 

An “Asianized” World – new layers on a Europeanized world.

 

The final point addresses a macroscale issue and one resulting from the ease in moving people, money, products, and ideas around the world.  My hypothesis is that the 21st century will be a dramatically different world than the 20th  or 19th  centuries, primarily because of the growing influence of Asian cultures and economies worldwide, and their influences on traditional non-Asian regions (Brunn, Ghose, Dahlman 2000). 

These Asian “layers” will derive from companies, investments, and diaspora populations (students, refugees, asylum seekers, domestic workers, scientists, artists, illegal aliens, refugees, athletes, business leaders, bankers, retirees, etc.) moving into Europe, North America, Africa, Australia, and Latin America.   These will come from South Asia, Southwest Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia.  We can already observe this phenomena if we walk the streets of West and East European cities, the Pacific Rim cities from San Diego to Vancouver, in South American cities from Santiago to Lima, in tourism- and investment-oriented Pacific Islands, in Sydney, Melbourne and Darwin, and on Africa’s east and southern coasts.  This Asianization began to be noticeable with Japanese, and to a lesser extent Korean, investments in North America, South America and Europe during the 1970s and 1980s, and with Southeast Asian refugee and non-refugee populations moving to Australia, the west coast of North America, and East Europe in the 1980s and 1990s.  These recent diaspora populations have been supplemented by large numbers of South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans) moving into central, northern, and Western Europe during the 1960s and 1970s and also to North America.  The end of colonial rule in Southeast Asia, especially the Vietnam War, but also the wars in Laos and Cambodia, resulted in a number of boat people and refugees finding havens in Australia, Canada, and western U.S.  Conflicts also in Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon and elsewhere in Southwest Asia contributed to students, professionals, and business leaders moving to Europe and Western North America especially.  The most recent Asians populations have been the Chinese who came from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China.  During the past decade Chinese students and professionals of various backgrounds have become a distinguishing feature in eastern Pacific Rim states. 

This “Asianization” layering has not been uniform.  In some countries and cities there are a half-dozen different nationalities, in others only one or two, and still others these “layers” are thin or nonexistent.  In some places, such as western U.S. and Canada, the new Asians represent “layers” on generations already established.  The impacts of these newcomers are visible and apparent in elementary and high schools as well as universities, merchandise in grocery stories, new Asian ethnic restaurants dotting the urban landscapes, but also in many other professional and unskilled occupations in urban and rural communities, including bankers, physicians, clerks, consultants, teachers, scientists, and artists.  Some Asian populations have established their own community centers, social clubs, sports associations, schools, and places of worship.  The concentrations of some Indian, Iranian, Yemeni, Saudis, Kurds, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese communities in some European and North American cities is significant.  This includes new language newspapers and radio programs.  Their appearance in the workplace, the real estate market, the schools, the religious landscape, in the entertainment industry (on athletic teams, as orchestra members, rock groups, in Hollywood, etc.), in the marketplace, and in city festivals and holidays are visible reminders that the culture of many a community is changing.   In the U.S. these new “layers” represent growth to a Central, Southern and European population that was aging in place.  The “geography” to these Asian layers in Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles would be different than in Houston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, and New York. I suspect there are discernible differences in the numbers and mixes of Asians in the capital cities on eastern, northern, and western South America. 

It will be interesting to observe and study this phenomenon during the coming decades, especially as it is a discernible diffusion process operating at local, state, and regional scales.  In some cases it may be hierarchical (small to large cities or vice-versa), in others more of a “contagion” process.  The time lags for these new generations of Asians appearing in a community and their impact on existing cultures, economies and the political landscape are worthy of our scrutiny.  We may find that as social and behavioral scientists we have to develop new models and theories to describe and interpret these Asian populations moving into or on top of European or African American and European places and spaces.  It is very possible that the models of acculturation, assimilation and “Americanization” that fit (or we thought they fit) fifty or seventy-five years ago just do not apply.  We need, for example, to be imaginative enough to realize that the South Asian Americanization processes may be different from those coming from Southeast Asia or Southwest Asia or East Asia.  And perhaps the western South American-Asian urban models may be different from Asians moving into urban eastern South America.  Perhaps the South American continent will see the eastern coast oriented to Europe and Africa, the northern countries to the U.S. and Mexico, and Pacific Coast states to East and Southeast Asia.  At any rate, fascinating geography days are before us.

 

Being Here/There/Everywhere and Nowhere – communicating and connectedness

 

Another feature of these “topsy” worlds relates to our communication and connectedness.  The advances in information and communication technology during the past two decades, initially with easier and cheaper long distance phone calling, then fax, but more recently the Internet and WWW, have changed for many (but certainly not all) on the planet how they look at the world, communicate in the world, and what it means to be connected (Graham and Martin 1996; Geographical Review 1997; Wheeler et al. 2000).

These space-adjusting advances have led to a “demise” of distance (some would say the “death” of geography,” but that is farfetched) separating places.  While it is easier and cheaper to communicate long distances now than a decade ago, we need to consider what these changes (the “collapsing” of time and space) mean to individuals, groups, organizations, and societies (Brunn and Leinbach 1991).   For older populations, these are nothing short of major watersheds in human interaction (or machine interaction).  They recall times when “distance” meant days or weeks to communicate from one place to another.  Now those same places can be reached in the same time it takes to phone a friend across the street.  (This assumes someone answers the phone or the phone is working, which is a problem in many developing countries.)  Or we can phone from our bedroom or kitchen to someone halfway around the world easier than a family member in another room in our house or apartment.   For those in the twenties they have experienced the computer revolutions in their lifetimes.  They lived in pre-computer days, and now can observe both the benefits and shortcomings of computers in communicating, obtaining information, and human interaction.  For those with young children, they were likely “born into” worlds where word processors, email, cellular phones, computer games, music videos, and the WWW are commonplace.  They have difficulty sometimes comprehending what the worlds were like for their older siblings, parents, and grandparents. 

I submit the “topsy” nature of this instant communication world or revolution has three salient features that are worthy of our attention.  First, it is a world where the “unevenness” between haves and have-nots is widening, not narrowing.  It widens rapidly because information and communications technologies require not only money, that is, an ability to purchase the products (not cheap), but also a “wired” infrastructure, and human skills (dexterity, a good memory, left brain “skills,” reasonably good vision, and patience).  Being a part of or integrating into these computer worlds is not the same as having a telephone or being able to drive a car, two technologies which affected more than we know about our perceptions and uses of spaces (Brunn 1998).  Rather, the technology of being able to use the Internet, the WWW, or chat rooms calls for the purchase of a powerful technology that remains beyond the reach of many in our own communities, our country, and on the planet.  And it calls for someone to teach us how to use the technology for our work, recreation, and communicating.  The cost and learning barriers will preclude many from acquiring and using these technologies, which are changing rapidly almost daily.  These “uneven” class, age or income differences also will result in “uneven social surfaces” of peaks and sinks, that is, some places (neighborhoods, cities, workplaces) will be much more connected, linked, accessible, and integrated than others.  Contrary to what some social and economic commentators in the rich world believe, there are places or regions in many parts of rural and urban South America, and elsewhere in the developing world, where there are few individuals, households, businesses, organizations and governments that are connected or have any idea what cellular phones, electronic commerce, the WWW, and the Internet mean.  The “net” that is more widely known is the fishing net and the Web is neither “worldly” or “wide.”

The second feature is what these advances will tell us about human interactions (Wilson and Corey 2000).  While they facilitate our communication with places farther away, will they contribute to greater human understanding and an improvement of the human condition?  The introduction of information and communication technologies during the past 150 years (the telegraph and telephone to television, fax machine, and computer) have heralded forecasts of better worlds and more peaceful and cooperative worlds.  But such forecasts have been overly optimistic and utopian.  We still have wars, conflicts, social and spatial segregation, voiceless and oppressed peoples, marginalized populations, tyrants, despots, famine, illiteracy, a proliferation of inhumane technologies, and businesses, organizations, and governments that seem more concerned about using these technologies for dominance and control than diffusing and using them to improve the quality of human life.  Why these “evils” of control, meanness, and manipulation persist in the world is not the purpose of this discussion.  But perhaps it should be, because too often we consider technologies as separate from people or technologies separate from the political climate in which they develop.  How many engineers who designed the technology had any  solid training in the humanities, the social sciences and philosophy?  If the developers of innovative information technologies and the producers spent as much time studying issues of culture, citizen empowerment, and social impact assessment, perhaps these technologies would be more humane and we could better address the social and geographical “gap” questions raised above.

A third feature is a more philosophical set of questions.  What do all these innovations tell us about who we are or we think we are?  Who are we when we log onto the Internet?  When we communicate with someone we know or someone we don’t know?  What does it mean to be “here” and “there” in virtual space?  When we conduct commerce electronically, are we different and wiser consumers than conversing face-to-face?  Are we different persons when we log onto a WWW site in the privacy of our own homes or our offices or from an airport or a motel room or a vacation hideaway?  Are we ordering books, CDs, videos, and liquor from a Web site to avoid paying state taxes or so that our neighbors and government won’t know our secret passions?   Who are we really when we engage in a “chat room” with total strangers who assume second or third identities?  What is our persona?  Do we have a different behavior on versus off the Internet?  Does spending ten hours a day (or even five) on a computer affect your personality?  Your way of looking at children, those of the opposite sex, friends, homeless, and the human condition?  What happens when much of your information, not necessarily knowledge, comes from “the visual?”  That is, we “learn” from images, icons, symbols, and colors, not words and phrases.  I believe we don’t really know enough about “learning from the visual,” and whether if it enhances or distorts our understanding of the nonvisual worlds of learning.  And whether there are significant gender, class, age, and geographical differences in visual learning.  We don’t know whether these innovations contribute to boredom, alienation, conformity, or creativity.

I raise these questions because the Internet is a different space and different kind of space than we experienced previously, and because we need as scientists and humanists to examine these questions.   Geographers have much to contribute to these dialogues because where we have our computers, where use the WWW, and with whom we communicate are all geographical issues.  We could even make a point that the Internet has “geolimnal” worlds.  We can be “in them, apart from them, drop in and drop out, be ourselves and be others.” In short, we become a “geolimnal” persona. 

 

Mapping “Topsy” Worlds

 

Considering future worlds and worlds of the future, what might the worlds of 2010, 2025, 2050 and 2100 look like?  In your hometown or city, in coastal Colombia, highland Peru, Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego, São Paolo, and interior Suriname?  Or in interior Africa, rural South Asia, or northeast China?  If you were a futuristic cartographer, would the map of the world be the same at 2025 as at 1975 or 2050 as at 2000?  I suspect not, which means we need to consider maps as “statements of where things are at points in time” not as a series of names of spaces and boundaries that are “frozen in time.”  We are probably also wise not to consider states in quite the same way we have depicted them in the past, that is, in a two dimension context.  If the recent information and communication advances tell us anything about space, it is that they are moving to “a world of points not areas,” that is, where places that are connected or not connected (Dodge and Kitchen 2001).  We may need a “Treaty of Silicon” to replace the Treaty of Westphalia to understand political futures (Brunn 1998).

Permit me to suggest a couple futuristic maps, as mapping futures have long been a fascination.  There will be some places and spaces that experience the latest innovations; that is, they are places where “time and space converge.”  These may be workplaces, neighborhoods, communities, parts of a country, and even a small “wired” country.  And there will be places that are reticent to accept these innovations, perhaps because they are simply unaffordable, or because the political and economic leaders fear them or simply wish to go against a “global trend.”  And the third group will include those places and spaces that are among the last to learn about and adopt any of these technologies; in short, they are “frozen” places or “time warps” (Brunn 2000).  Their human geographies may remain much the same today as fifteen, fifty, or 500 years ago.  And, what surprises some scholars, postmodernists and yuppie millennialists is that people actually live in these “warps” and seem rather content.  I can think of such places on all continents.  I don’t have to travel to Central Asia or interior Amazonia to know there are “unconnected places and peoples,” some live within a couple hours from where I live.

In conclusion, this topsy-turvy world is also one that presents challenges to geographers with different backgrounds and experiences and other curiosity seekers about places, experiences, maps, and environments.  No discipline has any claim to seeking the truth in our hometowns, countries, and the world.  These worlds are fascinating for us to study because they are around us, they tell us about ourselves, and because they are simultaneously both dynamic and static.  There is certainly no shortage of important and interesting topics that await field, library, statistical, or GIS analysis in the coming decades.  And I hope we continue our heritage and rich traditions of discovery, exploring, and mapping the worlds seen, unseen, and yet to be seen.

 

Where Do We Go From Here?  Challenges to the Communities of Geographers

 

In this essay, I have discussed a number of changes in the worlds around us and called on geographers to be sensitive to their impacts at personal, local, regional, and global scales.  A primary purpose has been to challenge the various geography communities to study them and consider including them in the content of what we teach and as topics for our personal or corporate research agendas. 

Geography is and never has been a discipline that operates or exists in isolation, even though it may appear so at times from the work we cite in our published research (mostly geographers) and our preferences to attend geography conferences.  The health and viability of any discipline now and in the future, whether in the academy, in government, or in the private sector, is dependent on the sharing of knowledge, the density of networks, the flows of communication within and across disciplines, and a resolution not only to contribute to a better understanding of science and the arts, but also to solving daily and persistent problems that plague human life, communities, organizations, and nations daily (National Research Council 1997).

Accomplishing the above goals calls for three different dimensions of interaction among disciplines: disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and cross- or transdisciplinary.  Disciplinary thinking as we know is tightly focused, that is, what an individual discipline contributes to studying a problem or pattern.  In geography we have professional geographers whose major lifetime teaching and research efforts are devoted to studying ethnic groups, crop/livestock patterns, cultural landscapes, urban transportation systems, vegetation mapping, and river basins.   Often these scholars have much more in common with their own peers in geography than economists, sociologists, anthropologists, botanists, or geologists.  We can discern this academic and professional isolation in part by the literature cited, conferences we attend, intellectual conversations, and personal friendships.  By interdisciplinary I refer to two or more disciplines studying a given issue or problem, such as migration, agricultural systems, and air pollution.  Each discipline would have a specific approach (age or gender, crop/livestock patterns, or emission levels) or perspective (geography) it brings to the research.  Often in interdisciplinary research we discover that scholars in different disciplines are studying some topic, but with little or no communication between them.  Transdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary investigations are deliberate attempts to cut across the different disciplines and explore common themes or theories that might help explain why something occurs where it does or the rate at which something is changing.  These investigations are all undertaken by colleagues in different disciplines who respect each other’s methodologies and theories and who realize that the most valuable findings will come from collaboration.

I can think of three very good examples where this healthy cross-fertilization exists.  One is the research by those in the Human Dimensions of Global Change scholarly community.  Included in this group are scholars who study food, energy resources, biodiversity, global warming, industrial economies, community involvement, quality of life, and government policy (Brunn and O’Lear 1999).  The professions include geographers, economists, biologists, geologists, anthropologists, and specialists in medicine, law, public policy, data gathering and GIS.    A second example comes from those studying AIDS.  This is a topic meriting inquiry by medical geographers, but also medical specialists in anthropology, economics, sociology, as well as public health, public education, information transfer, and the faith and legal communities.  A third is those who undertake work in the emerging field of e-commerce or electronic commerce (Leinbach and Brunn 2001).   This new and rapidly growing phenomenon of information being prepared, packaged, distributed, and marketed through the Internet, WWW, and forthcoming ICTs (information and communication technologies) are altering the way individuals communicate, behave, organize, and interact.  The same applies for small groups and large organizations, local and global businesses, and institutions including schools, churches, caring organizations (refugees, children, animal welfare), and governments.  Understanding the impacts of these technologies are not only a prime concern for economic geographers, or economists, but also all those disciplines studying human welfare and values, the response of democratic institutions to issues affecting privacy, the growth and power of information-based global transnational corporations, and the growing power of “the visual” (WWW, photos, advertising, films, etc.) in our daily lives (Pickles 1995).  These issues, like the global change and AIDS communities, are ones which geographers can and should contribute.  Those who see geography as a descriptive discipline can provide valuable contributions, as well as those who work with mathematical models, or come with a social theory background. 

 

In conclusion, I offer five suggestions or rewards that may help us understand the topsy-turvy worlds better.  They are:

 

1. Ferret out those with whom we share similar intellectual interests, whether those be landscapes, places, environments, spatial relations, or regions.  And once we establish those common grounds, deliberately engage in some transdisciplinary efforts, including co-teaching a class or seminar, working on a research project (in the field or the laboratory), or engaging in some worthwhile community efforts (voluntary or as a paid consultant).  I think geographers have a good record of working with geologists, economists, sociologists, and anthropologists, but let’s not forget those who study faith and belief systems, law, language, non-Western philosophy, health care, music, sports, and the fine arts.

 

2. Address challenging topics that we neglected in the past, simply because we thought they were too tough, or we were not prepared to study them.  These might include not only questions of the geographies of biodiversity (why are some places much more diverse than others), but also the geographies of survival (why do some individuals, communities, and systems survive) in the midst of adversity, war, extreme hardship, ecological damage, and exploitation.  These projects might be tested in a local community or comparative places around the world.  For example, the impacts of biodiversity loss, loss of space for wild plants and indigenous wildlife, civic empowerment, and massive economic restructuring can be investigated just as much in a small town as a hemispheric capital.

 

3. Continue our investigations into groups we have studied too little in our past.  I am not suggesting only the new diasporas, which are an interesting “layer” in many rural and urban landscapes.  But I include here the elderly, the disabled, the disenfranchised, as well as women and children.  To this list might also be added the drug addicts, the alcoholics, the homeless, the victims of discrimination, gays, the outcasts, and the lonely.  I maintain that a discipline that seeks to understand human-environment relations and human welfare will only be considered viable in society and in the academy if it includes in its agenda a commitment to studying the all members in a society.

 

4. Admit that geography and geographers have contributed in part to our misunderstandings about peoples, places, and environments.  Much good learning comes from re-learning about our mistakes in the name of scholarship.  Disciplines that are viable, active, and respected are those who critically and carefully look at their disciplinary histories and identify paths that will lead to intellectual renaissance, a wider appreciation of scholarship, and more integrative instructional models.  I can think of examples where much of what is known about the worlds around us comes from “Western” eyes and experiences, including the separation of much of geography in to physical and human “categories” or “camps.”   Much of the Western world experience is good, but we can also recognize and appreciate, with humility, contributions that come from those with different worldviews, different experiences, and different ways of telling and showing (maps, art, etc.) us what is important.  Again, listening to those from other sciences and humanities would enhance our confidence of sound professionals.

 

5. Develop a personal and working life and agenda that extends being willing to learn about human life and living in its broadest perspective.  I am referring here that we develop an interest in what brings joy, happiness, creativity, love, compassion, and a sense of individual and community well-being.  These might be being with and around children and favorite pets, visiting family members or contacting by phone or the Internet, working and playing in familiar landscapes, planting a garden or raising goats or horses, playing a musical instrument or making musical instruments, writing poetry or a novel, telling jokes and short stories, sharing photographs or video recordings with grandparents, or engaging in good deeds to a neighbor in need or victim of some tragedy.  These are “gentle acts of daily geography” that can bring comfort to the soul and an at-oneness with one’s environmental setting.  These are geographies as well that bring some order and peace to topsy-turvy worlds.

 

 

Resumen

Muchos de nuestros pueblos natales, ciudades capitales y estados están experimentando cambios mayores e inesperados, inducidos por recientes avances en las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación, las economías globales, nuevos alineamientos geopolíticos y por los movimientos transnacionales de nuevas diásporas. Un mundo “trastrocado” es el resultado. Estos cambios están afectando las identidades de individuos y grupos, lo mismo que los lugares donde trabajamos, hacemos compras, nos recreamos y practicamos un culto, las escuelas a donde van nuestros hijos, y las políticas que desarrollan nuestros gobiernos. Nuevas caras, paisajes culturales, sistemas de creencias, roles de género, estilos de vida e instituciones sociales, afectan por igual a regiones rurales antes aisladas y a regiones altamente conectadas. La rapidez y el carácter impredecible de estos cambios son lo que está  afectando la interacción y organización humanas. Los ejemplos incluyen la manera como las nuevas diásporas asiáticas están afectando áreas europeizadas, y cómo los nuevos “mundos” de la Internet retan nuestras ideas acerca de identidad, interacción, comunidad, límites, privacidad y el papel del gobierno. A los geógrafos corresponde estar alertas para examinar lo que está ocurriendo con los lugares, paisajes, regiones y entornos, considerando maneras innovadoras para cartografiar estos mundos nuevos, e incrementando nuestro saber compartido con otras disciplinas y paradigmas. Epígrafes: tecnologías de información y comunicación, identidad, globalización, desarrollo desigual, geografías de Internet, cartografía  futurista.

 

 

Correspondencia: Prof. Dr. Stanley D. Brunn, Department of Geography, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0027, USA; e-mail: brunn@pop.uky.edu

 

References

 

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism.  London: Verso Books.

Blakely, Edward J; Snyder, Mary G. 1999. Fortress America. Gated Communities in the United States.  Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Bonnett, Alastair. 2000. Anti-Racism.  London: Routledge.

Brunn, Stanley D. 1996.  The internationalization of diasporas in a shrinking world. In: Les Reseaux des Diasporas.  The networks of Diasporas, ed. George Prevalakis (Nicosia, Cyprus: Cyprus Research Centre, 259-72.

Brunn, Stanley D. 1998. A Treaty of Silicon for the Treaty of Westphalia. Geopolitics, 3: 106-31.

Brunn, Stanley D. 1998. The Internet as “the new world” of geography: speed, structure, volume, and humility. GeoJournal, 45: 5-15.

Brunn, Stanley D. 2000. Human rights in the Electronic State. In: Information Tectonics: Space, Place and Technology in an Electronic Age, eds. Mark I. Wilson and Kenneth E. Corey (Chichester and New York: John Wiley), 41-64.

Brunn, Stanley D.; Leinbach, Thomas R., eds. 1991.  Collapsing Space and Time: Geographic Aspects of Information and Communication.  New York: Harper Collins Academic.

Brunn, Stanley D.; O’Lear, Shannon. 1999. Research and communication in the “invisible college” of the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Global Environmental Change, 9: 285-301.

Brunn, Stanley D.; Anderson, Harry; Dahlman, Carl. T. 2001.  Landscaping for Power and Defense. In: Landscapes of Defense, eds. John R. Gold and George Revill (Essex: Pearson Education), forthcoming.

Brunn, Stanley D.; Ghose, Rina; Dahlman, Carl. 2000. The Asianization of Europeanized Worlds.  Presentation at International Conference on International Migration: New Patterns, New Theories. Nottingham Trent University, unpublished manuscript.

Brunn, Stanley D. et al. forthcoming.  The Geopolitics of Life and Living: Where Boundaries Still Matter, unpublished manuscript.

Buttimer, Anne; Brunn, Stanley D.; Wardenga, Ute, eds. 1999.  Text and Image: Social Construction of Regional Knowledges.  Leipzig: Institut für Länderkunde. Beiträge zur Regionalen Geographie 49.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, et al. 1994.  The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dodge, Martin; Kitchen, Rob. 2001. Mapping Cyberspace.  New York and London: Routledge.

Edwards, Tom. 2001. Corporate Nations: The Emergence of New Sovereignties. In: Worlds of E-Commerce: Economic, Geographical, and Social Dimensions, eds. Thomas R. Leinbach and Stanley D. Brunn (Chichester and New York: John Wiley), 293-314.

Geographical Review. 1997. Issue devoted to “Cyberspace and Geographical Space,” 138-307.

Graham, Stephen; Martin S. 1996. Telecommunications and the City: Electronic Spaces, Urban Places.  London: Routledge.

Janelle, Donald G.; Hodge, David E. Eds. 2000.  Information, Place, and Cyberspace: Issues of Accessibility.  Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York:  Springer-Verlag.

Leinbach, Thomas R.; Brunn, Stanley D., eds. 2001.  Worlds of E-Commerce: Economic, Geographical, Social Dimensions.  Chichester and New York: John Wiley.

McKee, Jesse, ed. 2000. Ethnicity in Contemporary America: A Geographical Appraisal. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

National Research Council. 1997. Rediscovering Geography: New Relevance for Science and Society.  Washington. National Academy Press.

Pickles, John, ed. 1995. Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems.  New York: Guilford Press.

Roediger, David,  ed. 1998. Black on White: Black Writers on What it Means to be White. New York: Schocken Books.

Romann, Michael; Weingrod, Alex. 1991. Living Together Separately.  Arabs and Jews in Contemporary Jerusalem.  Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rowles, Graham D. 1978.  Prisoners of Space?  Exploring the Geography Experiences of Older People.  Boulder: Westview Press.

Seager, Joni. 1997.  The State of Women in the World.  London: Penguin Books.

Wheeler, James O. et al. 2000.  Cities in the Telecommunications Age: The Fracturing of Geographies.  New York and London: Routledge

Wilson, Mark I.; Corey, Kenneth E., eds. 2000. Information Tectonics. Space, Place and Technology in an Electronic Age. Chichester and New York: John Wiley.

Wray, Matt; Newitz, Annalee. 1997. White Trash. Race and Class in America.  New York: Routledge.

Zeigler, Donald J.; Brunn, Stanley D. 2000. Urban ethnic islands. In: Ethnicity in Contemporary America: A Geographical Appraisal, ed. Jesse McKee (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield), 375-411.

 

 

 

Back to English Page                          Home

                 

                 

 

 

 

 

 


1  This article was originally published in Spanish by the Association of Colombian Geographers © in Semestre Geográfico, vol. 1 (1), 4-22, 2001.

 

2 Acknowledgment.  I want to thank my friend, Professor Hector F. Rucinque, for the invitation to submit this essay for the journal’s readers and his willingness to translate it into Spanish.