Society in Time and Space: A Geographical Perspective on Change.

Society in Time and Space: A Geographical Perspective on Change. By Robert A. Dodgshon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. xii plus 230pp. $59.95/cloth $19.95/paperback).

Robert A. Dodgshon is a historical geographer at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth. He has written widely on the historical geography of England and Europe, and since about 1992 he has intervened in debates on world-system analysis. His most recent book goes well beyond England, Europe, and the modem world system to propose nothing less than a general theory of change in human history.

Well versed in contemporary social theory, Dodgshon enjoys a sophisticated understanding of theories of change. His own theory seeks to make a place for space in the analysis of historical change while also striking a balance between structure and human agency. Spatial organization has a role in the production of history, so Dodgshon works toward a "geography of societal or socio-cultural change" (p.l). But Dodgshon has accepted much of the anti-toralizing thrust of postmodern critical theory, so he saves a role for human agency in his own theory of change. There is no geographical or environmental determinism here, but rather a vision of change that arises from human choices about deployment of their material, social, and cultural resources.

Dodgshon's principal category of analysis is inertia. If the problem of economic analysis resides in scarcity, for Dodgshon the principal problem for the study of change is inertia. He views societies as by nature open to change. But he recognizes that societies often resist change because they have invested resources in institutions and built environments that encourage them to persist in established ways and that discourage experimentation. He holds that this inertia comes from cultural, organizational, and environmental sources. Invoking Pierre Bourdieu's concept of cultural and symbolic capital, Dodgshon argues that inertia arises from conceptions of cosmic order, institutions, rules, roles, relationships, and routines as well as the built environment. Although they originally reflect growth, over time these constructions act as constraints on change even as they bring diminishing returns. As a result, advantages shift to marginal or peripheral regions less weighed down by inertia that have the flexibili ty to challenge well developed societies. This line of analysis, Dodgshon proposes, will lead do "a geography of flexibility and inflexibility" (p.180) that will enhance understanding of where change is likely to occur.

While offering sophisticated theoretical reasoning, Dodgshon makes little effort to apply his theory to historical experience. In fact his grasp of historical experience is both thin and superficial. This is most clear in a four-page discussion of Chinese history from the Shang to the Ming dynasty (pp. 61-66), where Dodgshon presents a wild confusion of pinyin, Wade-Giles, and other unidentifiable and hitherto unattested romanizations of Chinese names and terms. His account draws mostly on literature published between 1940 and 1965, with an occasional reference to more recent scholarship by Mark Elvin and "Twitchell" (sic, for Denis Twitchett). His discussions of other regions avoid such embarrassing signs of superficial understanding, but they are too thin to permit integration of theory with historical analysis. Dodgshon offers a work more of geographical-social theory than of historical geography grounded in human experience.

This is a serious problem because social theory is only useful to the extent that it leverages improved understanding of human experience, which itself plays a crucial role in sharpening the edge of theory. Limiting himself to high theory inadequately tested against reality, Dodgshon's explanation of change veers off on unproductive tangents. Because of his overriding concern for inertia, for example, Dodgshon inadequately considers the extent to which institutions, rules, roles relationships, routines, and built environments are sources of social power as well as wellsprings of inertia. Deeper historical understanding and consistent testing of theory against reality might have led to a better nuanced analysis of change. In the event, Dodgshon pitches his work at such a high level of abstraction and founds it on such a slender basis in historical experience that in spite of its theoretical sophistication it does little to improve the understanding of change in human history.