![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
As visions of ecological crisis mark the daily headlines, industrial spaces of intensive energy and material consumption become a more intense object of political and social concern. In this article, I attempt to situate geography's relative neglect of the ecological underpinnings of industrial capitalism within the context of the history of geographical thought. I argue that the ways in which geographers read the hyphen in the phrase “nature‐society” reveals epistemological limits to their object of study. I then offer three dramatically different readings of the hyphen and discuss how they have affected the lineages and trajectories of geographical research—Barrows's human ecology, Sauer's cultural landscape, and critical theories of social nature. I conclude by suggesting that geography needs to let go of its empirical and conceptual fixation on “nature”.
* I would like to thank Jody Emel, Deborah Martin, Richard Peet, Billie Lee Turner II, Dianne Rocheleau, Timothy Currie, Diana Ojeda, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this article. I would like to especially thank Craig Colten for his editorial guidance. All errors and omissions are my own.
* I would like to thank Jody Emel, Deborah Martin, Richard Peet, Billie Lee Turner II, Dianne Rocheleau, Timothy Currie, Diana Ojeda, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this article. I would like to especially thank Craig Colten for his editorial guidance. All errors and omissions are my own.
Notes
* I would like to thank Jody Emel, Deborah Martin, Richard Peet, Billie Lee Turner II, Dianne Rocheleau, Timothy Currie, Diana Ojeda, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this article. I would like to especially thank Craig Colten for his editorial guidance. All errors and omissions are my own.