Fred K.

Schaefer and the Science of Geography

Author(s): William Bunge
Source: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 69, No. 1, Special Issue:
Seventy-Five Years of American Geography (Mar., 1979), pp. 128-132
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2569559
Accessed: 04-08-2017 14:33 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Association of American Geographers, Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals of the Association of American
Geographers

This content downloaded from 146.155.48.101 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:33:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
128 SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY March
be the pervasive influence of "exceptionalism"
in geographic thought and stressed that geog-
raphy must cultivate its systematic aspects and
emphasize the search for laws. At this dis-
tance in time, it seems strange that the paper
was not accorded the recognition within the
Iowa department that others since have given
it. No reference was made to it in publications
by the Iowa geographers at the time. And yet
it was a methodological tour de force, an im-
portant milestone in the development of a
positivistic approach to human geography
viewed as a social science. William Bunge, who
was a faculty member at Iowa in the sixties,
was to write: "Schaefer has done us a great
service in sweeping away our excuses and
thereby freeing us from self-defeat."20
Whether the influence of Schaefer on Garri-
son's group at Washington was as great as
Bunge has stated will have to be commented
on by others.21 In the early Washington dis-
cussion papers I could find only one reference
20 W. Bunge, "Theoretical Geography," Lund Stud-
ies in Geography, Series C. No. 1 (1962), p. 12.
21 W. Bunge, "Fred K. Schaefer and the Science of
Geography," Harvard Papers in Theoretical Geogra-
phy, Special Papers Series, Paper A (1968), p. 17.
FRED K. SCHAEFER AND THE SCIENCE OF GEOGRAPHY*
William Bunge
KURT SCHAEFER was a whole man, a
conscious member of the human race, a
scientist, and an intellectual who remembered
his humanist commitment. He was a ferocious
fighter for decent and sensible human relations.
Not much remains for us to do except to say
we are ashamed and sorry for what happened
to him.
Schaefer was born on July 7, 1904, in Berlin.
His father was a metal worker and his early
* This paper, which was widely circulated among
geographers in the 1960s, appears here in a somewhat
condensed form with the permission of the author,
William Bunge. Most prominent of several previous
mimeographed versions was the one appearing in Har-
vard Papers in Theoretical Geography, Special Papers
Series, Paper A, 1968, under the editorship of William
Warntz.-Ed.
This content downloaded from 146.155.48.101 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:33:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
to Schaefer's article and that was in Bunge's
own paper.22
At Iowa in the late fifties there was still
Gustav Bergmann. He was the oracle outside
the geography department, a logical positivist
who had been one of the original Vienna Cir-
cle, a close friend of Schaefer, and the teacher
in one way or another of most of us who went
through the Iowa department. If Schaefer's
paper was not, as I recall, required reading,
Bergmann's book on the philosophy of science
certainly was!23 His influence on the work of
the Iowa geographers was seen everywhere.
Kennelly acknowledged Bergmann's assistance
in deriving a mathematical proof; McCarty,
Hook, and Knos offered a similar acknowledge-
ment in their study of industrial geography;
and two later alumni, Amedeo and Golledge,
borrowed heavily from his writings in their
book on scientific reasoning in geography.24
22 W. Bunge, "Methodology," Discussion Papers,
Department of Geography, University of Washington,
No. 21 (1959).
23 G. Bergmann, The Philosophy of Science (Madi-
son: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1957).
24 Douglas Amedeo and Reginald G. Golledge, An
Introduction to Scientific Reasoning in Geography
(New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1975).
life was that of a typical workingman's son. He
attended public school from 1911 to 1918.
During part of World War I he worked on a
farm while his father served in the German
Army. From 1918 to 1921 he followed in
the family tradition as an apprentice metal
worker. He was a man of his times and Ger-
man metal workers in 1921 were political radi-
cals. Schaefer joined the Social Democrats, and
when he was only seventeen he was Secretary
of the Trade Union Youth Section, a position
he held until 1925. There is do doubt that all
through his life, with only the exception of his
last years, his primary interest was political
and his politics were leftist. His interest in ge-
ography, though genuine and deep, seemed to
come from a frustration of his political life.
At the end he poured his heart into geography
 1979 THE CORNBELT
almost to be able to say that one result he pro-
duced was not destroyed.
In 1925 he entered Kaiser Friedrich Real
Gymnasium as an "adult student" and grad-
uated with distinction in 1927 despite the hard
financial and social problems then confronting
adult students. His work at the gymnasium was
at night school, and according to his aunt,
"His years as a student were passed under great
privation and iron determination." Schaefer
then spent a year at the Deutsche Hochschule
fur Politik where he studied political science
and political geography, while also working for
the city of Berlin as a social worker with un-
employed youth.
The heroic Germany of the 1920s had other
sides that also shaped him. Schaefer, an athletic
one-hundred and sixty pounds and almost six
feet tall, was an active member of a hiking club.
In later life he stayed physically active by ice-
skating and walking long distances.
Like many young German intellectuals of the
time, he was interested in the flourishing art
movement of Berlin and showed preference for
the art of social protest. His interest in the arts
also remained throughout life and eventually in-
cluded music.
In 1928 his union gave Schaefer a scholar-
ship to attend the University of Berlin. He con-
tinued into postgraduate studies until 1932. His
main fields of study as an undergraduate were
economics, economic geography, and political
geography. As a graduate student he studied
mathematics and population statistics.
In jobless Germany, Schaefer, the promis-
ing young Socialist, always found employment.
From 1928 to 1932 he was a statistician for
the City of Berlin working in the section of
School and Health Statistics. He was also coun-
cilor for social insurance of the Municipal
Workers' Association and teacher at the Trade
Union College.
As the Nazis made their bid for power,
Schaefer was in that wing of the Social Demo-
crats that preferred resistance by the already
armed and drilled workers to surrender to the
Nazis. But Hitler came to power and Schaefer
and people like him were immediately subjected
to terrorism. The Nazis came to his neighbors'
houses, first on one side and then on the other,
with sirens screaming in the middle of the night.
He was under constant police surveillance.
The twenty-seven year old political refugee
made his way to London. He was important
This content downloaded from 146.155.48.101 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:33:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CONNECTION 129
enough with the Second International (Social-
ists) to obtain employment in depression En-
gland. In 1936 he did research for the Institute
of Social Biology (London University) and for
the British Trade Union Congress. During 1937
and 1938 he worked as a statistician on "Move-
ments in Population" for the New Fabian Re-
search Bureau. Schaefer, the student with "iron
determination," continued his studies in statis-
tics and advanced mathematics at the London
School of Economics. He had political use for
these skills, but the heart of his political work
was in helping fellow Germans out of Nazi
Germany. He also was somewhat active in
British politics and wrote newspaper articles,
especially for the Daily Herald, on social con-
ditions in Middle Europe.
In 1938 he left England equipped with ref-
erences from people such as Gerhard Seeger,
former member of the Reichstag, and Sir Wal-
ter Citrine, head of the British Trade Unions.
He arrived in New York via Cuba and Florida
to act as an adviser to a "workmen's sick and
death benefit fund" and remained there during
the winter of 1938 and 1939. That spring he
moved to Iowa to help as a laborer to establish
the Scattergood Rehabilitation Center, a refu-
gee camp run by the American Friends Service
Committee, near the State University of Iowa.
It was here at Scattergood that Schaefer began
his serious study of music. Schaefer was now
thirty-four years old and, like so many of his
kind, unmarried and steeped in politics. He im-
mediately commenced his political work with a
series of lectures on "What to do with Ger-
many?", "U.S. Foreign Policy and Germany,"
"Trends in the German Economic System,"
"Whither Europe?", and others. He spoke
widely over the state and wrote articles for
journals and papers. His mission was to arouse
people to the Nazi menace and he worked at
it with ferocity. Scattergood itself was filled
with the human wrecks the Nazis deliberately
sought to produce. The horrible knowledge of
what had been done to his German friends was
thus daily refreshed.
His life was consistent in other ways. As an
intellectual he became a member of the staff
of the State University of Iowa, originally as a
half-time instructor in the School of Commerce
and later with the Department of Geography.
During this period, toward the end of the Great
Depression, the State University of Iowa had
five or six radicals on the staff. Smith's restau-
130 SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY March
rant provided an informal meeting place for
these men. Schaefer immediately affiliated.
This dedicated politician had high standards
for himself and others. He was soft-spoken yet
ironical and was contemptuous of those who
were not as intellectual as he, especially of
fellow university professors. He was a man of
character who believed in a principled life and
would not hesitate to turn even on long time
friends if he thought they had faltered. He hated
the Nazis. When the war ended and the Krupps,
the lesser Nazi functionaries, and Nazi generals
were not only allowed to go free but eventually
encouraged, Schaefer delivered a series of bitter
speeches. "'War with Russia is not inevitable,
but it is probable that we will go to war if we
hold on to the false impressions we now have,'
said Professor Kurt Schaefer in an interview
in October, 1947, concerning an address he was
to give in the Geology auditorium. 'The United
States' social system could never survive such
a war,' he added."'
In the early 1950s the FBI began open har-
rassment against the men of Smith's Restaurant,
including Schaefer. The technique consisted pri-
marily of "shadowing" these men. All individ-
ual protections fell away and Schaefer's income,
always very low (between 1938 and 1943 his
income with the University was listed as only
eight hundred dollars per year), was threatened.
He was abandoned by "friends" and by aca-
demic colleagues. At the beginning of his final
ordeal in the spring of 1946, Schaefer dropped
out of school for some months to gather him-
self. It seems that during this period of with-
drawal, which he spent at a rest home in Mil-
waukee, he was perfecting a new strategy and
he decided to stop being such an obvious radi-
cal politician. In 1947 he married Mary Strub,
a native of Iowa City.
Intellectually, he turned aside from his po-
litical writing and became a full-time geogra-
pher. On a university form, after the entry
"Achievements" he had written "Scarcely any."
He seemed at forty-two determined to produce
some lasting accomplishment. His main interest
remained in political geography but he spent
much time translating Lbsch's Economics of
Location from the original German into En-
glish. He was in personal correspondence with
Christaller.
1 Daily Iowan, student newspaper of the State Uni-
versity of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, October 19, 1947.
This content downloaded from 146.155.48.101 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:33:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
By 1950 Schaefer was teaching Christaller,
Lbsch, Hoover, and ThUnen. Schaefer's stu-
dents were writing articles in seminars on Leon-
tief and Vining. He read Russian fluently and
established a collection of materials on the So-
viet Union. He taught the geography of the
Soviet Union. His course on political geogra-
phy was taught from the perspective that the
politics were incomprehensible without eco-
nomic understanding. He remained interested
in mathematics and statistics and applied these
skills to geography. All told, he appears to
have been about ten years ahead of the rest of
geography. Unfortunately, he produced neither
students to carry on his approach nor very
much writing. Therefore, most of his advanced
outlook had to be painfully rediscovered by
others at a later date.
Schaefer's early and continued interest in
mathematics was put to use not only in under-
standing the mathematical treatment of Lbsch
and Christaller, but in preparing a book on
political geography. It was the preparation of
this book that led to his great contribution.
His second chapter dealt with "The Nature of
Geography" as it was originally titled. This was
to be the methodological chapter. Only frag-
ments of other chapters remain. For example,
he had used his mathematical skills to compare
the centrality of capitals. He then grouped the
various countries with peripheral locations, in-
ternal locations, etc., and discussed general rea-
sons for their various types of locations but
never went very far in this direction. Instead,
he concentrated on his methodological chapter
which later emerged as his famous article, "Ex-
ceptionalism in Geography: A Methodological
Examination. "2
Schaefer's article consistently defends sci-
ence and the possibility of spatial laws. He
hated "mere description" which he attributed
to regionalists and he despised "uniqueness."
The oblique references to free will, gestalt and
others, he felt, substituted for the search for
scientific laws. He had figured out much of
the specifics of both his attack and his positive
substitute "spatial relations" and even more
sharply, "patterns" 3
2 Fred K. Schaefer, "Exceptionalism in Geography:
A Methodological Examination," Annals, Association
of American Geographers, Vol. 43 (1953), pp. 226-
49.
3 Schaefer, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 227.
 1979 THE CORNBELT
Description, even if followed by classification, does
not explain the manner in which phenomena are
distributed over the world. To explain the phenom-
ena one had described means always to recognize
them as instances of laws. Another way of saying
the same thing is to insist that science is not so
much interested in individual facts as in the patterns
they, exhibit.
He introduces "spatial relations" with decisive-
ness :4
Geography, thus, must pay attention to the spatial
arrangement of the phenomena in an area and not
so much to the phenomena themselves. Spatial rela-
tions are the ones that matter in geography, and no
others. Nonspatial relations found among the phe-
nomena in an area are the subject matter of other
specialists such as the geologist, anthropologist, or
economist. Of all the limitations on geography this
one seems to be the most difficult for geographers
to observe. To judge even from recent research they
do not always clearly distinguish between, say, so-
cial relations on the one hand and spatial relations
among social factors on the other.
He specifically identifies "patterns" in geo-
graphic terms and takes a passing shot at time.
The phenomena of spatial change that he at-
tacks can be maintained in geography as mo-
tion but time is not necessary to describe mo-
tion:5
Geography is essentially morphological. Purely geo-
graphical laws contain no reference to time and
change. This is not to deny that the spatial struc-
tures we explore are, like all other structures any-
where, the result of processes. But the geographer,
for the most part, deals with them as he finds them,
ready made. . . . Let us in this connection consider
Koeppen's Hypothetical Continent. The word hypo-
thetical merely indicated that he neglected, for the
purpose of his climatological generalization, all but
a few variables. For the remaining ones he states
a spatial correlation that is morphological law. To
call such comparatively crude correlations patterns
rather than laws is perhaps laudable [sic] modest.
But to think that patterns, in this sense of pattern,
are different from laws, would be a mistake.
In the immediate geographic milieu Schaefer
was the methodologist for the rising predic-
tors in geography given such great impetus
by Christaller. It was Schaefer whom the gang
that Garrison gathered together at Washington
pored over. Schaefer's methodology interpreted
Hoover, LUsch, and Christaller and launched
Garrison and his raiders.
4 Schaefer, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 228.
5 Schaefer, op. cit., footnote 2, pp. 243-44.
This content downloaded from 146.155.48.101 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:33:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CONNECTION 131
Like any good prophet, or scientist, Schaefer
exposed himself to the dangers of making pre-
dictions: 6
What may one infer from all this for the future of
geography? It seems to me that as long as geogra-
phers cultivate its systematic aspects, geography's
prospects as a discipline of its own are good indeed.
The laws of all three categories which we have dis-
tinguished are no doubt both interesting and impor-
tant. And they all contain spatial factors to an ex-
tent that requires special skills and makes the pro-
fessional cultivation of these skills well worth while.
We, the geographers, are these professionals. I am
not so optimistic in case geography should reject
the search for laws, exalt its regional aspects for its
own sake and thus limit itself more and more to
mere description. In this event the systematic geog-
rapher will have to move much closer and eventu-
ally attach himself to the systematic sciences.
And the gloomy end almost happened with
"regional science" threatening to pull away the
last great systematic bastion of economic ge-
ography, with one better school after another
throwing geography completely out. That dan-
ger now seems past. The tide has turned.
In sum, Schaefer's historic article consists of
two basic contributions: an introduction to ge-
ography of modern philosophy of science, and
an identification of spatial relations as the sub-
ject matter of geography. Schaefer received a
fine education in philosophy of science from
one of its internationally renowned masters,
Gustav Bergmann. Bergmann was one of the
original Vienna Circle and he, too, fled Hitler
and found his way to Iowa City. These two
men became the closest of friends as two Ger-
man refugees with powerful minds and strong
characters.
Schaefer's second contribution, the discovery
of the subject matter of scientific geography,
was the critical and entirely independent con-
tribution. Schaefer had always conceived of ge-
ography as a science. Even in his hyperpolitical
period in 1943 he flatly asserted that geography
was a science.7 But it remained unclear as to
what the subject matter of the science of geog-
raphy was and he evidently wrestled with this
problem for some time. Obviously, from his ar-
ticle, he considered Christaller, ThUnen, Lbsch,
and Hoover examples. His intense concentra-
6 Schaefer, op. cit., footnote 2, p. 249.
7 Fred K. Schaefer, "Geography Training a National
Handicap," Journal of Business, University of Iowa,
Vol. 23, No. 4 (1943), pp. 9-10.
132 SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY March
tion on Christaller and L6sch probably gave
him hints. In some ways it is unfortunate that
he was not more explicit about the term "spatial
relations." It remained for Warntz and for
Garrison and his students at the University of
Washington, also careful readers of L6sch and
Christaller, to fully appreciate what Schaefer
had written. Schaefer gave only scanty elabo-
ration: 8
Geography . . . seems to be a field inclined and
compelled to produce morphological laws rather
than process laws. A typical theoretical situation in
geography is described usually by way of patterns.
Patterns are morphological laws. Koeppen's Hypo-
thetical Continent is such a law. The theoretical
nature of patterns has been somewhat neglected by
geographers and it looks as if here a real scientific
contribution could be made to scientific method by
geography.
Elsewhere he refers to shape, areal extent,
and centrality as being spatial and the subject
of geography. Still, it was difficult for the bulk
of geographers to obtain a clear idea of the
meaning of "spatial relationships" unless they
were intimate with the Christaller type of lit-
erature.
Schaefer, the rational man, approached his
methodology in an appealing fashion. In one
of the early drafts of this great article he wrote: 9
Scientific fields have grown historically by the in-
terest that curious men have taken in nature. Meth-
odological thinking about a field historically estab-
lished comes at a later stage of development when
it is found necessary to systematize and order ac-
quired knowledge and to obtain guidance in the
search for more and better truth. Hence the meth-
odology of any field tends to be a compromise be-
tween what has grown historically and what is de-
sirable from a merely logical view of order and
procedure. The maturity of a field then expresses
itself in the degree to which the logical element in
it prevails, in the manner in which major proposi-
tions are related to minor ones, and in the extent
to which it has been able to rid itself from acci-
dental activities and views acquired during the time
of its youth.
Schaefer was deeply involved in his article.
When he gave a copy of his final draft to Pro-
8 Fred K. Schaefer, "Political Geography," unpub-
lished manuscript, Chapter 3, p. 8. (This manuscript
is included in Schaefer's papers which were donated
to the American Geographical Society by his wife,
Mary Schaefer.)
9 Fred K. Schaefer, "The Nature of Geography,"
Chapter 2, pp. 1-2, unpublished manuscript, Schaefer
papers, American Geographical Society.
This content downloaded from 146.155.48.101 on Fri, 04 Aug 2017 14:33:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
fessor Harold McCarty, who was chairman of
the department, he was trembling and said,
"This is my reason for existence in geography."
His first forty-two years had been devoted to
a way of life that had been destroyed. He had
been harried from job to job and country to
country until he was isolated from his world
and friends. Deeply tired, he had decided to
stand and fight where he was, to marry, to turn
himself seriously to his profession. He trans-
ferred his idealism and energies from his de-
stroyed world to geography and in seven years
of intense further effort produced one great
work.
The production of the article, his "achieve-
ment" in life, was not without strong opposi-
tion which further drained his energies. With
sheer brilliance of argument his only weapon,
Schaefer fought to be heard. Fire engine sirens
vividly reminded him of Hitler's terrorism. He
became distinctly nervous if a person got on
and off the bus with him since he had been
followed by the Gestapo and the FBI for
months. McCarthyism repulsed and sickened
Schaefer in a way that those of us who have
not seen Hitler come to our native land can-
not understand. In the winter of 1952-1953
Schaefer suffered a heart attack and on June 6,
1953, he died of a second one. His article-his
"reason for being"-had not yet been pub-
lished. His good friend Bergmann had to com-
plete the final mechanics of publication. He was
denied even this satisfaction.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1941. "German Business Under Hitler," Journal of
Business, State University of Iowa, Vol. 21,
No. 5, pp. 4-6.
"Japan's Supply of Raw Materials," Journal of
Business, State University of Iowa, Vol. 21,
No. 6, pp. 11-14.
1943. "Geography Training a National Handicap,"
Journal of Business, State University of Iowa,
Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 9-10.
1945. "Area Study and General Education," School
Review, University of Chicago, Vol. 43, No.
2, pp. 90-97.
1946. "Post War Geopolitics and Economics," Educa-
cation, February issue, pp. 1-6.
1947. With Charles Addison Hickman, "The Growth
of Cartels," in Hickman, ed., World Eco-
nomic Problems (New York: Pitman Publish-
ing Corporation), pp. 161-82.
1953. "Exceptionalism in Geography," Annals, Asso-
ciation of American Geographers, Vol. 43,
pp. 226-49.