Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-22T19:51:21.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Shrew Environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Juval Portugali
Juval Portugali
Affiliation:
Department of Geography Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper begins by addressing the notions of technological pessimism, society and environment from the point of view of geography and planning. It identifies two pessimistic waves in the recent history of geography and planning thought: “technological or explanational pessimism” in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and “understanding pessimism” in the late 1980s. The first is a distrust of positivist geography and rational planning to explain and control the environment; the second adds to the first a distrust of that part of social theory which in the early 1970s was thought to provide the alternative to positivism — a distrust of structuralist-Marxist-humanistic (SMH) geography and planning to understand (and thus to control intellectually) the individual, society, and the environment. The paper proposes that at the root of both types of pessimism is the essentially causal, mechanistic, and thus aspatial, property of social theory as a whole. It then examines the conjunction of Bohm's orders and Haken's synergetics as a source for optimism — not to control, but to participate and dialogue.

Information

Type
Modern Societies and Their Environments
Information
Science in Context , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Summer 1994 , pp. 307 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

AAAG. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 1979. 69.Google Scholar
Agnew, J. A., and Duncan, J. S. 1989. The Power of Place. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Alonso, W. 1964. Location and Land Use. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auerbuch, F. 1913. “Das gesetz der ‘Bevolkerungskonzentration’.” In Petermanns Mitteilungen 59th year.Google Scholar
Berry, B. B., and Horton, F. E.. 1970. Geographic Perspectives on Urban Systems. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. 1957. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bohm, D. 1980. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bohm, D., and Peat, F. D.. 1987. Science, order and Creativity. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Breitbart, M. M. 1981. “Peter Kropotkin, the Anarchist Geographer.” In Stoddart 1981, 134–53.Google Scholar
Bunge, W. 1962. Theoretical Geography. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Chadwick, G. 1971. A System View of Planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Christaller, W. A. 1966. central Places in Southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Cooke, P. 1990.“Modern Urban Theory in Question.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 15 (3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dear, M., and A. Scott, A., eds. 1981. Urbanization and Urban Planning in Capitalist Society. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. [1978] 1990. Writing and Differences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dunbar, G. S. 1981. “Elisee Reclus, an Anarchist in Geography.” In Stoddart 1981, 154–64.Google Scholar
Eldredge, H. W., ed. 1967. Taming Megalopolis. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Faludi, A., ed. 1973. A Reader in Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1980. “Questions on Geography.” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Gordon, C., 63–77. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1986. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics 16:22–27. Translated from the French by Jay Miskowiec.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisby, D., and Sayer, D.. 1986. Society. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Galbraith, J. k. 1975. Economics and the Public Purpose. Harmondsworth: Penguin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, D. 1978. Ideology, Science and Human Geography. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Hagerstrand, T. 1970. “What About People in Regional Science?” Papers and Proceedings of hte Regional Science Association 24: 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigh, M. J. 1985. “Geography and General System Theory: Philosophical Homologies and Current Practice.” In Portugali 1985a, 191–203.Google Scholar
Haken, H. 1985a. Advanced Synergetics. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Haken, H. 1985b. “Synergetics: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Phenomena of Self–organization.” In Portugali 1985a, 205–11.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1969. Explanation in Geography. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1970. “Social Processes and Spatial Form: An Analysis of Conceptual Problems of Urban Planning.” Papers of the Regional Science Association 25.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1973. Social Justice and the City. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1982. The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1985a. Consciousness and the Urban Experience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1985b. The Urbanization of Capital. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Isard, W. 1956. Location and Space Economy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, G. 1980. Urban Planning in a Capitalist Society. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ley, D. and Samuels, M. 1978. Humanistic Geography. Chicago: Maaroufa.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. 1959. “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’,” in Faludi 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lösch, A. 1954. The Economics of Location. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lyotard, J. F. 1979. The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
McLoughlin, J. B. 1969. Urban and Regional Planning: A System Approach. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Marchand, B. 1978. “A Dialectical Approach in Geography.” Geographical Analysis 10(2): 105–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, K. [1852] 1972. “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.” In The Marx–Engels Reader, Tacker, R. C., 432–525. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Meyerson, M. 1956. “Building the Middle Range Bridge for Comprehensive Planning.” In Faludi 1973, 127–38.Google Scholar
Peet, R., ed. 1977. Radical Geography. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Portugali, J. 1980. Allocation, Distribution, Social Structure and Spatial Form: Elements of Planning Theory. Progress in Planning, vol. 14, no. 3. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Portugali, J. ed. 1985a. “Links Between the Natural and Social Sciences.” Special Geoforum issue, 16(2).Google Scholar
Portugali, J. 1985b. “Parallel Currents in the Natural and Social Sciences.” In Portugali 1985a, 227–38.Google Scholar
Portugali, J. 1986. “Arab Labour in Tel Aviv: A Preliminary Study.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 3:351–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portugali, J. 1988. “Nationalism, Social Theory and the Israeli Palestinian Case.” In Geographical Perspectives on Nationalism, edited by Johnston, R. J., Knight, D., and Kofman, E., 151–65. Beckenham, Kent: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Portugali, J. 1989. “Nomad Labour: Theory and practice in the Israeli Palestinian Case.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 14(2): 207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portugali, J. 1990. “Social Synergetics, Cognitive Maps and Environmental Recognition.” In Synergetics of Cognition, Haken, H. and Stadler, M., 379–92. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portugali, J. 1993. Implicate Relations: Society and Space in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. 1985. Order out of Chaos. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Readings, B. 1991. Introducing Lyotrad. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Relf, E. 1976. Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.Google Scholar
Simon, H. 1979. The Science of the Artificiad. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
“Society and Space: Environment and Planning D.” Reconsidering Social Theory — a Debate. 1987. Society and Space. Special issue.Google Scholar
Soja, E. W. 1989. Postmodern Geographies. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Stoddart, D. R., ed. 1981. Geography, Ideology and Social Concern. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thünen, J. H. von. [1826] 1966. Thunen' Isolated State. English translation. Hall, P.. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1977. Space and Place. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Vico, Giambatista. [1744] 1961. The New Science. Translated by Bergin, T. G. and Fisch, M. H.. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Weber, A. 1929. Theory of the Location of Industries. Translated by Friedrich, C. J.. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. G. 1970. Entropy in Urban and Regional Modeling. London: Pion.Google Scholar
Wolch, J., and Dear, M.. 1989. The Power of Geography. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar