Meeting the Challenge … An Approach to a Geomorphological System Theory

  • Kirsten von Elverfeldt
Chapter
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)

Abstract

At the beginning I raised the question whether system theoretical thinking is a challenge for geomorphology. Unambiguously, this question has to be answered in the affirmative. This is not only due to the fact that per se a system theoretical foundation of a science is a challenge: After all, modern system theories force scientists to think in loops, as simple causalities are questioned per definition. The specific challenge for geomorphology, however, goes further than this. It is rooted in the epistemological imperative of empiricism that strongly (and nearly utterly) determines geomorphological research. This results in a marginalisation of geomorphological theoretical work and research. This dissertation thesis represents an explicit alternative draft to this research practice. It stresses that theoretical research offers a considerable surplus value. Just as the Austrian composer Anton Bruckner (1824–1896) said: (S)He who wants to build high towers has to give special attention to the foundation. Now, what about this foundation within geomorphology?

Keywords

Rock Glacier Autopoietic System Considerable Surplus Glacier System Dissertation Thesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    von Glasersfeld E (2002) Ernst von Glasersfeld im Interview mit Reinhardt Voss. “··· es ist eine anstrengende und vor allen Dingen ungemütliche Sache”. In: Reinhardt V (ed) Unterricht aus konstruktivistischer Sicht. Die Welten in den Köpfen der Kinder. Luchterhand, Neuwied, pp 26–32Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Egner H (2008) Gesellschaft, Mensch Umwelt—beobachtet. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der Geographie. Erdkundliches Wissen. Franz Steiner, Stuttgart, p 208Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mingers J (2002) Can social systems be autopoietic? Assessing Luhmann’s social theory. Sociol Rev 50(2):278–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Egner H, von Elverfeldt K (2009) A bridge over troubled waters? Systems theory and dialogue in geography. Area 41(3):319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hess B, Markus M (1986) Chemische Uhren. In: Dress A, Hendrichs H, Küppers G (eds) Selbstorganisation. Die Entstehung von Ordnung in Natur und Gesellschaft. Piper, München, Zürich, pp 61–80Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egner H (2010) Theoretische Geographie. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, pp 144 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hard G (1973) Zur Methodologie und Zukunft der Physischen Geographien an Hochschule und Schule. Möglichkeiten physisch-geographischer Forschungsperspektiven. Geog Z (61):5–35 (hier aus: Hard G (2003) Dimensionen geographischen Denkens. Aufsätze zur Theorie der Geograpie, vol 2. Osnabrück, pp 87–111)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luhmann N (1986) Systeme verstehen Systeme. In: Luhmann N, Schorr KE (ed) Zwischen Intransparenz und Verstehen. Frankfurt a.M, pp 72–117Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simon FB (1997) Kreuzverhör: Fragen an Heinz von Foerster, Niklas Luhmann und Francisco Varela. In: Simon FB (ed) Lebende Systeme: Wirklichkeitskonstruktionen in der systemischen Therapie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, pp 131–147Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jantsch E (1987) Erkenntnistheoretische Aspekte der Selbstorganisation natürlicher Systeme. In: Schmitt JS (ed) Der Diskurs des Radikalen Konstruktivismus. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, pp 159–191Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsten von Elverfeldt
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung, Fakultät für WirtschaftswissenschaftenAlpen-Adria-Universität KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations