ABSTRACT
In this response, I want to limit m yself to the main them e o f the book, the dialogue between hum anism and historical materialism. I am sure many o f us have grow n weary o f the standard tripartite division o f social scientific or geographical m ethodology into positivist, interpretive/hum anistic and radical positions, and hence such a dialogue is long overdue. I shall argue first that a dialogue is only possible between certain varieties o f hum anism and historical materialism, and that the insights o f critical theory are particularly useful in identifying these variants. Another issue relevant to hum anism and historical materialism which has been perceived most acutely by critical theory is the divorce o f science from the realm o f practice and values. In the second section I shall argue that humanism and historical materialism as represented in geography tend to reinforce rather than reverse this divorce. Finally I shall discuss some m ore m undane methodological aspects o f the problem o f synthesis, and o f the attem pt to interrelate the concerns o f humanistic and M arxist research. How ever, in approaching these issues, I find m yself starting from a different position from many o f the other contributors to this volume, including those who, like me, share an interest in realist philosophy. It may therefore help if I explain some o f the differences.
