Levels of Living in the North-Eastern United States c. 1960: A New Approach to Regional Geography

Abstract

SINCE G. T. Trewartha presented 'A case for population geography' in 1953 American geographers have devoted rather more attention to it.1 However, the trend has been but part of a redress of the balance between the several systematic branches of the discipline and very few attempts have been made to adopt D. J. M. Hooson's principle that the distribution of population is 'the essential geographical expression, thorough interpretation of which can weave the many strands of geographical knowledge into a coherent and intelligible pattern'.2 Paradoxically, growth in the range, detail and availability of population data and the increasing sophistication of studies in demography and population geography may have retarded the adoption of this point of view. Certainly the recent, often excellent, but disparate studies of various aspects of the population geography of the United States afford inadequate bases for regional study. This is inevitable in that each deals with the distribution of population according to but one characteristic, the most thorough interpretation of which is only likely to reveal some of the threads of geographical knowledge in that complex tapestry which is the United States. Therefore, if Hooson's principle is to be thoroughly assessed, the test must be based on studies of population distribution in which populations are considered according to not one but several characteristics. It is axiomatic that the basic unit in the study of population is the individual. Therefore, since the individual is a unique person, combining a number of traits, the geographer should study the distribution of population not only according to each of what would seem to be the more important characteristics but according to the complex of characteristics which together determine its quality. For several decades, sociologists have been comparing the socio-economic qualities of different populations by means of level-of-living indices3 and similar techniques have been used in comparing the economic health of different areas.4 Geographers have contributed to the latter but would seem to have remained unaware of the level-of-living concept and hence of its potential significance both in population geography per se and as a basis from which to assess Hooson's contention.