Marxist Geography

From Geography

---

Revision as of 19:39, 24 October 2012

Contents 1 Definition 2 Geographical example of Marxism within Geography 3 References 4 Contributors

Definition

Marxist geography is focused at the analysis of the geographical conditions, processes and outcomes of socio-economic systems, primarily capitalism, using the tools of Marxist theory (Gregory et al, 1996). Marxism first became an important theoretical influence in geography in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Geographers of that period were not satisfied about the dominant vision of geography of that time. The vision of geography at that time was technocratic, positivist spatial science. Geographers found out that geography:

• Had a focus only limited to spatial patterns. It did not take into account the social processes which produced the inequalities in those patterns;
• was technically oriented, and also ostensibly neutral geographical techniques and analyses often were served in practice to enable and perpetuate various relations of domination;
• Laws which were created and advanced by spatial analysts were generated from industrialized western societies.

The theory of Marx was dialectical, focused at political openness, also focused at solutioning of exploitation and inequality, and internationalist. The theory of Max formed a foundation for a critical geography. Its aim was to understand and to tackle the production of unequal geographies. During the 1970s and 1980s, Marxist approaches were the dominant ones in critical human geography. The Marxist geography was also involved in the debates about the underdeveloped countries. Marxism contributed to the development of geographical theories of the global capitalist economy.

Geographical example of Marxism within Geography

There are various theories within the geography which has been influenced by Marx. A known one is the world systems theory by Immanuel Wallerstein. Another theory is the Dependency Theory. The dependency theory can be related with the vision of Marxism theory. Within this theory there is a dependency between the core and periphery. The core could be the developed countries and the periphery the underdeveloped nations. The periphery is dependant of the core. Actually the periphery can be seen as the proletariat (the people without any assets) and the core as the ‘bourgeois’ (those who had assets to produce). The periphery delivers (cheap) labour to the core and is dependant of the core. The core exploits the periphery. As the bourgeois exploits the proletariat.

References

Contributors

• Page created by--HennyLi 21:39, 24 October 2012 (CEST)