Q. Give a comparative account of radical approach and welfare approaches in Geographic Studies
Sample Answer
In the recent past geographers have adopted a number of philosophical approaches and methodologies to interpret man-nature relationship with the objective of proper development of individuals and societies. Now, the main objective of geographical teaching and research is to train students in the analysis of phenomena so that they can take subsequently up the problems of society. Welfare and radical are two such philosophical approaches in geographic studies which emerged due to growing disillusionment with the positivistic-quantitative methdology in solving contemporary problems.
Emergence/development of welfare approach was one of the distinct consequences of critical revolution in the contemporary human geography in the 1970s. It is an approach to human geography that stresses questions of inequality. The welfare approach emerged from the radical reaction to the quantitative and model-building emphasis of the 60s which was thought to be insufficiently concerned with contemporary problems.
A movement towards the welfare approach was infact heralded by D.M. Smith and P.L. Knox. Smith book “The Geography of Social Well-being in the United States” was prepared in the light of growing belief that GNP and national income are not necessarily direct measure of the quality of life.
Welfare geograpy has been defined as that part of geography where we study the possible effects of various geographical policies on the welfare of society. Smith defined welfare geography as the study of “who gets what, where and how”.
A welfare society needs better allocation and distribution of commodities and means of production among classes and among places. The process can be expedited efficiently if geographers who have the knowledge about man-environment interation and spatio-temporal distribution of phenomena, are actively involved in the process of planning and formulation of public policies at all levels.
On the basis of description and analysis of phenomena geograpgers evaluate the developmental plans and prescribe suitable strategies for balanced development. Such judgements must be made involving equity as well as efficiency criteria with which geographer is more familier.
The welfare theme helps to clarify four basic taks which have defined the scope of human geography:
- Description: involves the empirical idenfication of territorial levels of human well-being.
- Explanation: involves identifying the causeand-effect links among the various activities undertaken in society.
- Prescription: is the process of planning the spatial organisation of human activity.
- Implementation: is the final process of replacing a state deemed undesirable by something superior.
The welfare approach is designed to focus and attention on Lasic questions of distribution inequality in geographical space. The essence of the approach is to look at areal differentiation and the spatial organization of human activity from the perspective of welfare of the people involved.
On the other hand, whereas welfare geography works in principle within the framework of existing economic and social system. Radical geography which has been established more recently, calls for both revolutionary theory and revolutionary practices.
The growing disillusionament in the Americari society party as a result of setbacks in Vietnam war, social inequalities, racial tension and the uresponsive attitude of the authority, on the the one hand, and the Marxist theory, on the other hand, formed a broad symbiosis for radical geography. However, according to Peet, radical geography developed largely as a negative reaction to the established disciplines.
Thus, radical geography was developed and supported by thos who criticised geography as a spatial science giving more emphasis on quantitative techniques. Unlike welfare approach, the radicalists believe in the need for a revolution in both theory and practice of geography.
As far as welfare geography is concerned, it believes in value judgements or views as to what really matter most to us, i.e. the relative value, the worth or goodness of different facets of life. But the intention of the radicalists was to displace supposed value-free approaches to scientific method by ones which explicity acknowledged a value system based upon, in cases, a theory of labour value.
As discussed earlier, welfare approach was not influenced by any dogmatic bias while as a hilistic revolutionary science, Marxism provides a firm theoretical base for the radical movement in geography. The man and environment relationship may be understood through history. At the root of the history lay what is called the economic factor, namely the mode of production. Are means of production changed, corresponding changes occured in the relationship among people and between man and environment, from which arose those vital elements in the composition of society such as religion, law, social institutions and government.
Marxist theory not only provides an understanding of the origin of the present system, with its many-faceted inequalities, but also propounds alternative practices which would avoid such inequalities. For Peet, the Marxist science begins with a material analysis of the society, proceeds through a critique of capitalist control of the material base of society and proposes solution in terms of social ownership of that material base.
The research tradition generated by Marxist/ Radical approach in geography has four basic components:
(i) The first is the critique of positivist spatial science, and of humanistic geography.
(ii) The second is to provide general theoretical frameworks within which empirical work can be set.
(iii) Thirdly, there is work that seeks to establish how individual act within the structural imperatives.
(iv) Finally, there is detailed empirical work that seeks to understand particular aspects of the subject matter of human geography within the structuralist framwork.
Thus the methodology of the radicals are dialectical materialism and its historical variantshistorical materialism. On the other hand, the method in welfare geography essentially appears to be descriptive.
There are other distinctions also between radical and welfare approaches. The welfare approach logically requires a holistic social perspective while radicalists stress a holistic view of economics, society and polity. Welfare Geography, as discussed earlier, is concerned with the spatial social and economic inequality and the forces responsible for this whereas radical geography seeks to explain not only what is happening but also prescribes how to changed.