The reasons of wane of spatial- quantitative perspective in political geography studies

Following the emergence of spatial perspective and quantitative revolution in human geography, both the “idea” and “methodology” were transformed. In the 1950s and 1960s, other branches of human geography, except for historical and cultural geographies, focused on spatial school in their researches and published many scientific works. However, political geography did not manage to adapt itself to these transformations. The result was the separation of political geography from the main stream changes of geography in the 1950s and 1960s. The present study tries to find answer to the following question: why did spatial perspective entered political geography with delay, and afterward, in the 1970s, was removed from the center of political geographical studies?
The present study is a basic research conducted through descriptive-analytical approach. The data were gathered using library and computer research, and then, were analyzed qualititaively.
The following reasons can be put forward for the question why political geographers applied this perspective late in their studies:1. Incongruity of basic researches with positivist method in political geography: Basic researches in the realm of politics cannot be adapted with positivist perspective. Hence, quantitative revolution led to a disturbance in political geography, as quantitative works were of limited use in political geography which, initially, had little to offer in research for “spatial laws” except for the case of election.
2. Inappropriateness of basic theories of spatial – quantitative perspective with problems of political geography: Quantitative geography (and subsequently, Geographic Information Science, GIS) developed as a response to the challenges of the day, particularly economic stagnation of Western countries. One outcome of spatial-quantitative was focus on Location Theory. However, this theory was primarily applied in urban and economic geography and did not have much relevance in political geography.
3. Ignoring the factors of power and politics in spatial perspective: The positivist political geography had cognitivist shortcomings. This perspective was apolitical and independent from politics. Location theory was largely spatialization of neoclassic economy of those days. In common economy and, hence, Location theory, the problem of power can be easily ignored. In other words, focusing on the neoclassic economies as a self-regulative system, the problems of conflict and unequal distribution are ignored. Thus, a real political geography could not flourish within such perspective; as political geographers had to ignore the agent in their studies and investigated the “processes” rather than “causes”.
Although political geographers joined to spatial perspective too late but they did valuable contribution, especially in election geography, Study of urban politics and Changes in administrative areas during 1970s. But after 1970s, spatial perspective went out of the centrality of studies. Regarding the decline of spatial perspective in the studies of political geographers, two reasons can be put forward:1. Paradigm shift in the science of geography: Evidently, the existing ideas in political geography are always (of course, with some delay) a function of thoughts in other branches of geography. By the emergence of economic and political crises in many Western countries in the 1960s, most geographers inclined toward radicalism-Marxism and structural perspective since 1970s. Also, since 1970s, the humanist school of geography has been established and developed. The main criticism of humanists from positivist was that in the positivist methodology and spatial thought school, sufficient attention has not been paid to explanation of humanist problems. In the 80s and 90s, the thought framework of geographers shifted significantly, and the development of perspectives since 1970s entering into humanist geography led to the formation of trends such as critical geography, post-structuralist and post-modern geography.
2. Changes in international system: Clearly, the ending years of the 1960s, due to changes in the international system, prepared the ground for recovering political geography. Some of these changes included emergence of new actors in the international stage due to decolonization, emergence of nationalism in the third world, Cuban revolution, and the growth of evolutionary movements in other regions of the world. By the changes in the national system, political geographers were no longer obliged to hide themselves behind the shield of positivism which claimed to be positive and impartial, and remove the problems of power and politics from their writings.
Spatial perspective affected sub-branches of geography in varying degrees. Meanwhile, political geography was one of the branches least affected, and during 1950s and 1960s, had the most traditional orientation. The main factors which, during 1950s and 1960s, prevented political geographers from adapting to the major thought school of spatial perspective included incongruity of basic researches with positivist methodology in political geography, inappropriateness of basic theories in spatial-quantitative perspective with the issues of political geography, ignoring power and politics in spatial perspective. But the reason for the decline of the importance of spatial perspective in the 1970s in political geographers’ studies is the paradigm shift in the science of geography and changes in the international system. At the end, it must be pointed out that despite all challenges and deficiencies of spatial-quantitative perspective, this perspective has had to useful reflections; i.e. the expansion of behavioral geography. Agnew believes that spatial perspective paved the way for recovering political geography, as the new political geography was developed in a critical context of spatial-quantitative revolution. According to Cox, spatial perspective is one of the three main traditions of studies in geographical science. Also, Agnew believes that spatial analysis is of the three main thought trends which entered political geography since the 1960s, and has been placed successfully in the though landscape of this discipline. In fact, nowadays, we witness pluralism in political geography in terms of both subject and methodology, and spatial-quantitative perspective is one of those numerous perspectives used by political geographers, since sometimes, it is the only approach to investigate a problem.