Field Geography and Postwar Political Problems

Abstract

It may seem unnecessary to recall this affirmation, forty-odd years old, of faith in field observation. Field work has been an accepted part of geographical research for a long time. But political geography, perhaps more than any other branch, has been considered a pursuit of office and library. Examples of intensive field work in political geography, other than boundary surveys, are not numerous. Now political geography is emerging as an aid to government. It may be well to reaffirm the need for field work, where and when such work is possible. It may be well to emphasize anew the subtle but vital difference between knowledge derived from books and maps and that based on firsthand observation. It may be well to state again that mere acquaintance is not true field study. It may be well to look down the vistas that spread before political geographers, to review the field techniques, and to ask what new tools may be needed to meet new problems. As every geographer knows, there is no necessary conflict between field and office work. The former prepares one for the latter. Field observations are analyzed in the office. The two types of work are complementary and mutually fertilizing. Nor is field work the key to all knowledge. History, indispensable background to political geography, is pursued chiefly in libraries and archives. But field work is not without value even in purely historical studies-S. E. Morison's life of Columbus, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, is an example in point. At the least, field work is a valuable check on documentary material. At best, it reveals new facts, gives new insights, and vitalizes verbal presentation. Three vistas spread before political geographers in the period of the war's denouement. Each opens up a set of problems: i. Problems of political rehabilitation and reorganization.