Beyond Difference: From Canonical Geography to Hybrid Geographies

G eography as a discipline has evolved into a field of enormous breadth in the last century. While distinctive theoretical perspectives have emerged in different periods, the ebbs and flows of new approaches are often marked by vitriolic contestations. In response to articulations of new visions of what geography is or should be, debates often turned into antagonistic discourses that are surprisingly tenacious once being set in motion (Martin 1989). In the process, individual geographers are increasingly being identified in terms of distinctive geographical traditions or specialties that are often perceived as incompatible if not outright conflicting. Areas of geographic inquiry perceived to be incompatible gradually drifted farther and farther apart over time in the intellectual landscape of the discipline. The twentieth century has witnessed at least two major rifts in geography with lasting effect on the discipline. One is the separation of physical geography from human geography, which stemmed from the ontological separation of nature and society in geographic discourses (FitzSimmons 1989; Hanson 1999; Massey 1999, 2001). The other is the separation of spatial-analytical geographies from social-cultural geographies through attempts to create a mode of disembodied geographical analysis that separate spatial patterns and relations from social, cultural, and political processes (Sack 1974; Soja 1980; Gregory 1981; Sayer 1985; Rose 1993; Brown 1995). As a result of this separation and subsequent rounds of critiques through Marxist, humanist, feminist, poststructuralist, postcolonialist, queer, and other critical perspectives, social-cultural and spatial-analytical geographies are increasingly perceived or represented as irreconcilable spheres of geographical endeavors (e.g., Gould 1994, 1999). In the process, human geographers have become identified in binary and pejorative terms: social theorists and postmodernists on the one hand, and spatial analysts, quantifiers, or GISers on the other. Despite several attempts to address this social-theory/ spatial-analysis rift in geography and imagine alternatives (e.g., Pratt 1989; Lawson 1995; McLafferty 1995; Barnes and Hannah 2001; Plummer and Sheppard 2001; Sheppard 2001; Kwan 2002c; Schuurman 2002), the division seems deeply entrenched and remains a significant shaping force in contemporary American geography. Further, the rift seems to have magnified over time through rounds of polarizing debates and to have led to a situation of mutual indifference and absence of dialogue between these two groups of geographers—a predicament that is arguably more difficult to overcome than antagonism. Recent reflections by geographers, however, have started to raise serious concern about this disciplinary dynamics (Pratt 1996; Johnston 2000b; Hannah and Strohmayer 2001; Kwan 2002b; Wyly 2004). The centenary of the AAG seems an opportune moment to think about the possibility of breaching this internal divide in American geography and to ask: Might it be possible to open up a bit the relationship between socialcultural geographies and spatial-analytical geographies? In this article I explore how the social-theory/spatialanalysis split in geography arose. I argue that it is important that this rift be addressed in a more explicit manner because it will likely have a significant effect on American geography in the twenty-first century. I consider some possibilities for reconnecting social-cultural and spatial-analytical geographies. I examine the notion of hybridity and its potential for redressing this polarizing tendency in the discipline. I reflect upon how hybridity may be a productive stance for negotiating difference among geographers and geographies. I suggest that the fluid identities it allows can be beneficial for creative geographical research.