The work of David Harvey highlights and criticizes geographical knowledge as hypothesized by many philosophers. Harvey came to tabulate that geographical knowledge can not related to a single disciple. Several disciplines are involved in making up geographical knowledge. A couple of locations are used in producing geographical knowledge. It is used makes changes in the mainstream. It shapes the public both for good and bad. The accumulation of data through documenting and inventory does not make up geographical knowledge. This is according to Harvey. Geographical knowledge is built on theories, concepts and ideas (Derek Gregory). The world is represented in a well ordered way by incorporating these concepts and ideas. According to Harvey, various perspectives on the world come up due to space concepts. Harvey’s work is also a critique in the manner he handles calculus of spatial science. In attaining a true human geography, he incorporates various concepts.
Modern Capitalism is dealt in Harvey’s work. In his view of the world, there are some issues which are selective, authoritative and panoramic. The Limits to Capital and Explanation in Geography are the two key texts which elaborate on Harvey’s work. Harvey’s movement in which he moved to historical materialism from spatial science is covered in essays elaborating on Social Justice and the City.
There were two revolutions which led to the publication of Explanation in geography. One of the revolutions was the ‘Quantitative revolution’. This revolution which came in to being in 1960s convulsed geographical inquiry. In this revolution, both human and physical domains were incorporated in determining a new geography based on scientific credentials. Harvey took part fully in these revolutions (Derek Gregory). He was not just an observer. He participated fully in spatial analysis. These works about spatial science was pragmatic, speculative, and inquisitive. It was also carried by incorporating less methodological and wider philosophical issues. In his work, Harvey emphasized on the importance of distinguishing between methodology and philosophy. In looking in to ‘nature’ of geography he did not take in to perspective philosophical arguments. Harvey focused on the criteria put forth by philosophers into geographical inquiry (Derek Gregory).
He mainly focused on the application of the criteria established by philosophers of science. Philosophical claim was what Harvey based his work. Harvey objected excepctionalism tradition which was founded by Kant. This was in view of different knowledge. He rejected Kant’s revelations since it separated history and geography and it was not based on scientific progress. Sciences organized world based on logical classifications. Contrarily to this, History and Geography was supposed to be based on physical classifications. It was based on observation of phenomena. Harvey did not base his work on this; he instead focused on delineation of scientific method. It was based on positivism and philosophy of science. By grounding on philosophy of science was manful. The work of Harvey laid a foundation (Derek Gregory). Harvey derived some concepts from various philosophers such as Hempel, Braithwaite and Nagel in his explanation. These were physical philosophers and were the ones behind the establishment of the deductive-homological model. Harvey referred this to as the ‘standard model of scientific explanation’.
Harvey was centered his explanation on the concept of space. He argued that space was the main concept in geography (David Harvey). He gave his attributes for geography coherence with space. He pointed out that double transformations were of essence in obtaining the coherence. A process had to be used to transform space from the planar categories of Euclidean geometry. Harvey was from the start keen on the connection between process and spatial structure. This came up which undertaking his doctoral research based on agricultural change. The convection that space was a ‘container’ was Harvey’s major concern. He therefore looked into spatial analysis which would replace this concept. He was for basing his arguments on space by looking in other geometries.
Harvey works were met with some critiques from Marx. Marx had hypothesized that there was no smooth way to science. The other revolution under which Explanation of geography was written was the revolution of sorts (Henri Lefebvre). This revolution narrated the events which took place in Germany, France and other parts of Europe. It was also based on the civil rights movements and the anti-war experienced in United States. Harvey agreed that he was very much moved by these events. He was concerned on the methodological issues. Harvey was aware that he had a great role in improving Marx work. The Limits of capital which was published in 1982 gave some insight on Marx’s work (David Harvey).
Two major dimensions were put across in this publication. Harvey pointed out the stand of Marx on the issue of capitalism. Harvey based his arguments on the critiques provided by Marx on political economy. Dynamics of capitalism was the major area used by Harvey to criticize the work of Marx. Some of the Limits to capital in Harvey’s work were the factors prioritized in Marx’s work. These factors include historical transformation and time. These were put across as limits to capital by Harvey. Harvey based his work on dissolution of capitalism.