The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography

"The sevenfold continental system of American elementary school geography did not emerge in final form until the middle decades of the present century."About 12 yrs ago, as I was driving for AAA Airport Express, I got to know a UGA geography professor and I asked her what was the one book about geography that one should absolutely read. She responded: The Myth of Continents. I bought the book soon after; alas, it has remained on my bookshelf (incl. 3.5 yrs in storage) unread...until now.Admittedly, I read parts and skimmed parts, but this book is very informative. The basic premise challenges what is obviously strange about the "seven" continents: the separation of Europe from Asia is grossly arbitrary, and is rooted more in socio-cultural bias than it is geographical or, even, geological. The authors also challenge other problematic notions as East vs. West, Orient vs. Occident, North vs. South. At the same time, however, it pushes back against postmodernist attempts to do away with definitions entirely, asserting that there must be some kind of basis in fact to talk about human geography. The authors do a good job of showing how our notions of geography are rooted in our culture; and they show that other cultures have often done the same thing. I especially appreciated the authors' foray into the development of world history as a historical discipline in itself and the effort to move away from a Eurocentric approach to world history.This is certainly an important book that challenges many assumptions, and also critiques anti-West reactions (such as Afrocentric geography) as employing the same mistakes as Eurocentrists have made. My own critique of their work would be that, while some terminology (such "Western" or "New World") is problematic, such shorthand is useful in everyday conversation. The sun doesn't truly "rise" after all, but we're still able to use such language while holding reality in the mind. But the authors themselves note that they often have to use continental language even as they are challenging it. At the end of the book, the authors posit 14 regions they say would make a better basis for talking more coherently about human geography without classifying one being "higher" or "better" then another. Here are some other quotes from the book below:"What ultimately damns the continental system, however, is not its vagueness or its tendency to mislead us into making faulty associations among human cultural groupings. Most insidious in the long run is the way in which this metageographical framework perpetuates a covert form of environmental determinism…the belief that social and cultural differences between human groups can ultimately be traced to differences in their physical environments.""The formula 'modernization = westernization' assumes a priority of origin over process, of geography over history."

I really was quite impressed by this book, and really enjoyed some of the arguments made by the authors, it is quite eye-opening!

...and never the twain shall meet." Kipling was wrong about that. This fascinating book shows how culture and world-view influenced not just Kipling and others of the past, but continues to do so with us today. Our maps, both mental and otherwise, are largely shaped by our own realities. Indeed the authors argue we are all unwitting believers in THE MYTH OF CONTINENTS. The metageography that this book critiques is defined as "the set of spatial structures through which people order their knowledge of the world." Such structures are arbitrary, but it's not just continents. It extends to world regions, culture areas, zones, and even civilizations. Also any depiction in atlases, on globes, in texts, and on political maps. It's all extremely subjective.One of the strengths of this book is how it shows these artificial views emerging, changing, and adjusting to the dynamism and power of cultures. The concept of the continent of Europe is directly connected to the power of that region. Why else, the authors ask, should India be a sub-continent and China only a part of Asia? "In physical, cultural and historical diversity, China and India are comparable to the entire European landmass, not to a single European country."The book traces the origins of the continental system from Herodotus through Ptolemy, the Romans, Medieval Europe to the Age of Discovery and beyond. The whole idea of what defined a continent (large landmass seperated by water) was always very fungible. The authors say that as late as 1599 "any reasonable large body of land or even island group might be deemed a continent". They give the example of a geographer referring to the West Indies as a "large and fruitful continent". The West Indies themselves are a perfect example of perception dictating form. We know that the "Indies" part came about because Columbus thought he had arrived in the East. The metageographies of West and East then are concepts that, like continents, are open to criticism. So too are the New and Old worlds, the First and Third Worlds (was there ever a Second World?) The same vagueness surrounds the North and the South, the Occident and Orient, Far East, Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific Rim.In offering their own system for organizing human space the authors replace continents with "world regions". Arnold Toynbee and more recently Samuel Huntinton's system of using civilizations as the organizing principle gets a nod from the authors. In the classification they use, Europe is now "Western Eurasia", "African-America" includes not just the West Indies but the entire Caribbean and North-Eastern Brazil. North America remains and Ibero-America emerges.Obviously geographers will thoroughly enjoy this book but it has a much broader appeal. Wherever we are in the world we use some of the terms above to describe our place. If nothing else this book will make us all a little more aware of how we define ourselves and others.