Гуманитарная география: проблемы терминологии и (само)идентификации в российском и мировом контекстах
GeoHumanities: terminology & (self-)identity problems in Russian & international contexts
Different meanings of the term “GeoHumanities” (“humanitarian geography”) in Russian are considered. GeoHumanities is argued to be regarded as a specific Russian interdisciplinary research tradition. The links between the notions of “cultural geography” & “geohumanities” are analyzed, as well as the differences between geohumanities & similar traditions in the international context (new cultural geography, humanistic geography, geography & the humanities)
The most effective approaches to mental maps as an instrument of presentation of the complex cultural geographical research products are given as a result of comparative study. Two opposing paradigms of understanding ‘mental map’ as a term are revealed. The first deals with the orientation schemes present in the minds of personalities and/or visualized as abstract diagrams without obligatory spatial information or geographical coordinates given. The second is in fact a kind of geoimages serving as visual representations of individual or generalized visions of the given territory. They may be drawn by the informants according to the researcher’s task, or constructed by the scientist himself as a result of generalization of received data. Traditional geographical maps with thematic content representing space perception issues are regarded as a special branch of this kind of mental maps. The productive combination of two contradictory approaches with the systems of interconnected place characteristics justified by cultural geographical research ‘located’ at certain geographical coordinates is suggested. The examples of mental maps developed out of both approaches & meeting the mentioned criteria for complex cultural geographical research are given.
The online edition contains mental maps of all major Russian macroregions & some regions & cities of Russia, representing ethnic, cultural & geographical specificity of the territories. Unique regional images & their localization are combined in vivid textual & visual materials, mental maps & regional onomasticons.
For the experts specialized in cultural geography & geihumanities, regional & local studies, cartography, and for a wider audience of those interested in geographical diversity of Russia.
The aim of the paper is to discuss different approaches to the toponyms and their usefulness for the study of the historical culture in the urban space. In this discussion author adresses Soviet toponimical heritage and particularly to the case of "Sovietskaya street" which is rather common for (Post) Soviet cities.
The author attempts to reveal the most efficient methods of mental mapping for cultural geography and geohumanities. The retrospective overview refers to the two opposing understandings of the “mental maps” term. The first mental maps type includes orientation schemes, which exist in minds and can be visualized as special diagrams. The second type unites various kinds of geoimages with conventional or traditional cartographic proportions, from sketch maps made by informants based on the researcher’s task, to thematic geographical maps presenting certain kinds of space perceptions. The author argues that the combinations of those two approaches with the major space images (revealed using research methods) localized in certain places on the conventional geographical map are the most prospective.
There have been no cultural geography in the USSR for half a century, and human geography was narrowed to economic geography alone. However the tradition of Russian anthropogeography (L. Berg) of the 1910s was one of the first in the world to focus on cultural landscapes.
The representatives of the official Soviet geography, from N. Baransky in the 1930s to V. Gokhman in the 1980s, stated the need for ‘social & cultural geography of Soviet nation(s)’. Landscape studies were ideologically suppressed and were focused strictly on natural landscapes.
When cultural geography finally emerged after the collapse of the USSR, it turned out to be rooted neither in Russian anthropogeographic tradition, nor in Anglo-American cultural geography. Making their own way, Russian cultural geographers were inspired rather by French philosophers and gave birth to a specific framework of ‘gumanitarnaya geografiya’ (‘humanitarian geography’ in word-by-word translation), which I argue to be likely to be translated as ‘GeoHumanities’.
This GeoHumanities doesn’t look like traditional Sauerian cultural geography. Its main themes seem similar to those of new cultural / humanistic geography, but its trends & prospects differ a lot, as there were no revolutionary changes like those between Sauerian vs. new cultural / humanistic vs. critical geography. There’s no other cultural geography research in Russia, except GeoHumanities school focused on cultural landscapes, geographical images, spatial myths & regional identities, majorly in modern urban areas & deeply rooted in literature & art discourses with case-studies mostly presenting the imageries of historical towns.
Cultural geography is a rather young and not completely institutionalized geographical science in the Russian realm. There are no cultural geographical atlases present in the state of the art, Russian classifications of thematic atlases, though one of the options includes “the atlases of culture”. A series of S.Ya. Suschiy’s atlases of the history of Russian culture and regional historical and cultural atlases may serve as some examples of atlases using the materials of cultural geography. These atlases are rarely original in terms of the means of cartographic visualizations. They are often merely historical or even hardly include any maps being only formally named as atlases while in reality looking like regional encyclopedias. The phonomena of cultural geography have received a certain development among thematic maps of complex atlases. Though the maps of cultural artifacts prevail in this case there are the traditions emerging of mapping cultural heritage and also of cultural geographical regionalization. There are such examples present in the volume “History. Culture” of the National atlas of Russia and also in some thematic products of neighboring disciplines like ethnic, ethnographic and ethnogeographic atlases. However, one can hardly witness any specific for cultural geography mapping means or approaches even in these latter cases. Mental maps could be regarded as potentially prospective trend for creating atlases specifically within cultural geography. In this regard, there is a need to overcome the existing dichotomy of mental maps like graphic means of picturing the human perceptions of their environments and traditional cartographic products focusing on mental representations. The prospect is likely to be focused on the complex cartographic decisions linking spatial representations and certain cultural landscapes.