Comparison Between Livingstone and Sauer - Essay Example

Comparison Between Livingstone and Sauer While Carl Sauer and David Livingstone have both contributed to contemporary geography, they are products of very different time periods characterised by very different modes of thought. As such, the final product of their professional careers is also quite different. To better understand the differences between the two geographers, a brief look at the two time periods is needed. Livingstone conducted his travels at the end of the nineteenth century. This time period is marked by the intense exploration of unknown lands and the propagation of Western ideals and beliefs as well as commercial ambitions. Sauer, however, began to head the geography department at Berkeley in 1923, when geography was beginning to take form as an established discipline (Bruman 1996). In the late nineteenth century, geography was more of a reading genre than it was part of institutionalised academia. Robert Mayhew explains, in an essay by Wendy Gibbons, that geography texts were “essentially gazetteers, with headed paragraphs for conveying information about the nations of the world, starting with mathematical location before moving on to descriptive geography” (Gibbons 2001). Thus, given the different expectations of the time periods, the initial purposes, final results and methodology between the two men were also different. Each time period has its own academic trends and priorities. Prominent public figures are often direct or indirect products of their intellectual surroundings. Therefore, it is valuable to take a look at the academic climates in which Livingstone and Sauer made their respective contributions as well as their various purposes in embarking on their adventures, whether they be academic or otherwise. Livingstone conducted his explorations during what is considered the new imperial age of exploration. This was a time of expansion, the expansion of territories as well as of ideas. With the best of intentions, Livingstone helped pave the way for European colonialism and exploitation. Industrialisation brought with it the desire for imported minerals and natural resources (Crawfurd 2005). Since the accepted idea of the time was that Europe was far superior to Africa, the country that first set foot onto uncharted African territory was practically considered its owner. Even though slavery had been abolished in Europe, it was the Africans that did most of the excavating, exploring, translating and carrying. Africa at this time was seen as a mysterious and dark land, ripe for exploration and conquest. It was the perfect space to play out the prominent ideas of the time. Livingstone was initially a missionary. He began his explorations not so much as an attempt to map uncharted territory, but more as an effort to open up new paths to commerce and Christianity. While working to construct missionary stations deeper into the “Dark Continent’s” interior, he came into close contact with Africa’s slave trade. His intention was then to slowly eradicate the slave trade by replacing it with the trade of European goods. He believed that “civilisation” must be brought to Africa and that Christianity and commerce were the perfect carriers. Livingstone was not very successful as a missionary and made numerous geographical errors (Sykes 1996). After all, he converted only one African who later reconverted and various miscalculations nearly sacrificed his Zambezi expedition. Later he thought he had found the source of the Nile only to realize that it was actually the upper Congo (Sykes 1996). Still, he represents for many the spirit of the explorer. His contributions to the geography of Africa are invaluable. It was he, after all, who first began to draw attention to Africa and her people. Carl Sauer is considered one of the founding fathers of American geography. He marks the initial separation of physical geography from human or cultural geography. His predominate concern was of the relationship between people and their environment. He repeatedly stressed the importance of other academic disciplines, namely anthropology. Coming from a scientific background, his purpose was not to impose his beliefs on other cultural groups, but to objectively observe other traditions and religions. Thus, unlike Livingstone, conversion was not his purpose but rather scientific observation. Sauer, in his presidential address delivered to the Association of American Geographers in 1940, explains his three-point underpinning to the study of geography. They are as follows: The study of the history of geography; the study of physical geography; and the study of anthropology (Sauer 1997). These three underpinnings give one a good idea of Sauer’s academic focus. The main difference between Livingstone and Sauer can be found in the third underpinning, in the study of anthropology. Anthropology stresses the importance of avoiding ethnocentricity, of imposing one’s own cultural values onto those of the other. Livingstone, in a large part a product of his time, is the perfect example of the contrary. He considered the Africans “wild” and described them as “humans of a lower form” (Crawfurd 2005). Had he been able to employ the teachings of participant observation and scientific objectivity, he may have learned of the African’s ancient trade routes across the continent rather than insisting on finding his own path. Because Livingstone was concerned with the expansion of territory, religion and commerce, neither the cultural traits of the tribes he lived with nor their relationships with the environment were deemed important. Sauer, who is the product of a much later academic period, was a follower of human geography. He explains that, “human geography... is a science that has nothing to do with individuals but only with human institutions, or cultures” (Sauer 1997). This concern, then, leads to an interest in how the environment is managed. Sauer gives a brief comparison between environmentalism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the mid-twentieth. He states: “The design of science that Montesquieu, Herder, and Buckle forecast, failed because we know that natural law does not apply to social groups, as Eighteenth Century Rationalism or Nineteenth Century Environmentalism had thought. We have come to know that environment is a term of cultural appraisal which is itself a ‘value’ in culture history” (Sauer 1997). In Livingstone’s time, Darwinism was just beginning to make headway. Because Darwinism and Social Darwinism were considered one in the same, the effect the origin argument had on the idea of racial superiority and inferiority was quite marked (Haller 1970). Negroes were considered an inferior race, by some an entirely different species. They were, in an essence, left out of the evolutionary hierarchy. This accounts, in part, for Livingstone’s perspective, which by today’s standards would be considered quite racist. It is to this idea that Sauer refers when he explains that natural law does not apply to social groups. Thus, Livingstone was greatly influenced by the importance that Christianity and commercialism held for European society at the time. Exploration and expansion were priorities. Furthermore, Darwinism, while highly controversial, had taken hold of the scientific community, giving way to a generally accepted Social Darwinism. Sauer, however, was more the product of academia, of the natural sciences. Anthropology allowed him to become well versed in the art of participant observation and cultural relativity, even though he later lost interest when the discipline began to become more interested in social theory (Entrikin 1984). Sauer was a third party concerned about the relationship between people, or cultures, and their surroundings, while Livingstone was concerned with leaving his own mark in what was, ethnocentrically speaking, uncharted territory. Despite all of these differences, both men have contributed greatly to geography in general. After all, it was Livingstone who initially drew interest to Africa and began mapping her territory. Both men were dedicated to their professions and never ceased increasing their knowledge of their area or teaching others. Carl Sauer represents the beginning of American geography and David Livingstone the height of European exploration. Both men are the embodiment of the highest ideals of their time. Works Cited Bruman, Henry J. 1996, ‘Recollections of Carl Sauer and Research in Latin America,’ The Geographical Review, [online], vol. 86, pp. 370-6. Available from: Wilson Select Plus. [18 December 2005]. Crawfurd, Jacob. (2005), Dr. Livingstone, [online], The Crawfurd.dk Homepage. Available from: [18 December 2005]. Entrikin, J.N. 1984, ‘Carl Sauer: Philosopher in Spite of Himself,’ Geographical Review, vol. 74, pp. 387-408. Gibbons, Wendy. 2001, ‘Critical of What?: Past and Current Issues in Critical Human Geography,’ History of Intellectual Culture, [online], vol. 1, num. 1. Available from: University of Calgary. [18 December 2005]. Haller, John S. Jr. 1970. ‘The Species Problem: Nineteenth-Century Concepts of Racial Inferiority in the Origin of Man Controversy,’ American Anthropologist, [online], vol. 72, pp. 1319-29. Available from: The American Anthropological Association. [18 December 2005]. Sauer, Carl O. 1997, “Foreword to Historical Geography,” University of Colorado, [online]. Available from: [18 December 2005]. Sykes, Lisa. 1996, “Livingstone, I applaud,” The Geographical Magazine, [online], vol. 68, pp. 4. Available from: Wilson Select Plus [18 December 2005]. Read More