ABSTRACT
In recent years there has been a reappraisal of the role that geographical knowledge plays in the reproduction of the wider society. This reappraisal has been linked to an understanding that geographical knowledge is not produced in a vacuum, but reflects broader social and cultural patterns. For example, it is now widely accepted that, as an academic subject, geography played an important role in the projects of imperialism and empire. Peet (1985) suggests how geography lent scientific legitimacy to imperialist ideologies such as environmental determinism that explain why some ‘racial’ groups were more ‘advanced’ than others. Hudson (1977) argued that geography ‘was vigorously promoted … largely if not mainly to serve the interests of imperialism in its various aspects, including territorial acquisition, economic exploitation, militarism, and the practice of class and race domination’. Many of these ideas found their way into school curriculums and textbooks and formed what might be called the ‘Imperial Curriculum’. It is possible to argue that geography’s rather unsavoury past was an aberration, and one that is well behind us now. After all, geography as a discipline has undergone a series of ‘paradigm shifts’, not least of which was the ‘new’ geography that established the discipline as a ‘spatial science’. In addition, the incorporation of the children of immigrants from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan in the period following the Second World War has made teachers and textbook writers aware of the need for representations that are sensitive to different cultures. Generally, it might be argued, the gradual shift in consciousness, which has been brought about in large measure by the struggles of previously excluded groups to be recognized, has been reflected in the ways in which Geography is taught and learned in schools.
