An American Association of Geographers?

Our current name made eminent sense in the context where the Association was founded, in Philadelphia on December 29, 1904. (The story is told by Preston James and Geoffrey Martin (1978) The Association of American Geographers: The First Seventy-Five Years. AAG: Washington DC.) William Morris Davis wanted to create an academic association for scholars in the United States who thought of themselves as geographers. Regional groups labeled geographical societies and geographical clubs already existed, as did the American Geographical Society (AGS) and the National Geographical Society (NGS). But these were places where philanthropists and other elites gathered to share their passion for things geographical, rather than gatherings of professional geographers. An attempt to create a sub-group of scholarly geographers within the NGS, “Fellows,” had been rebuffed; it was deemed as implying an un-American class distinction.
After Davis was elected Vice-President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1903, he gave a speech to the AAAS, titled “Geography in the United States.” He advanced the case for a professional society of geographers, which would establish standards for scholarship for a discipline of considerable popular interest. Such a society should restrict membership to persons with a track record of original published research in a sub-field of geography. (The AAAS did have a Section E designated as Geology and Geography, but Davis had experienced this as dominated by geologists disinterested in Geography as a field of scholarship.)
Davis proposed to the AGS that it help form a League of American Geographical Societies as a step toward creating such a professional society, which he proposed naming “the American Geographers Association.” He was rebuffed again, but brought this proposed name to a meeting of potential members convened during the September 1904 IGU meeting in Washington, D.C. The following December, after much debate about who (almost entirely men) would qualify as geographers, an organizational meeting was held at the University of Pennsylvania. At this meeting, it was agreed “at once” to change the name to the Association of American Geographers.
In that context, the city where the Declaration of Independence was drafted, at a moment when the USA was yet to become a global hegemon and the status of being American was taken for granted, and with Geography marginalized as an academic activity (sounds familiar?), the name made sense. Yet the result was that the moniker American was attached to the members rather than the organization or the discipline. In the name of almost every other U.S. American academic association, “American” is attached to the discipline (e.g., the American Geophysical Union, American Sociological Association, American Anthropological Association, American Historical Association, American Meteorological Society, etc.).
Today, the AAG has become far more than a community of American geographers. Many of our members, even among those working in the United States, are not (only) American citizens. Many more attend our annual meetings from outside the United States as our national meetings have become the gathering place for geographers from across the world. The percentage of meeting participants from outside the United States has risen from just 2.8% in 1982, to one fifth by 2006, to one third this year and last.
It is thus time to consider changing our name to the American Association of Geographers. This renaming is not a new idea. Some of my predecessors have argued this (indeed I find myself channeling many of the arguments in Susan Cutter’s February 2001 presidential newsletter column making a similar proposal). Many members from within and beyond the United States also have advocated such a name change (most recently at the 2013 AAG Business Meeting). This particular renaming is also not ideal: “American” has very different, contested meanings across the Americas, and the use of this self-appellation by U.S. Americans often is regarded by other Americans as an, at best unwitting, assertion of U.S. hegemony. We live in an age when brands matter, however, and retaining the initials AAG (rather than, say, USAAG) is a far easier organizational transition to envisage.
Names are invested with all kinds of identities, and no such action should take place without every opportunity for members to have their say. So, while this idea has the unanimous endorsement of the current AAG Council and of past Presidents with whom I have shared it, let us know what you think. Respond [below] to this column, but also participate in an on-line referendum that the Association will organize in the near future. If there is substantial support from across our membership, the Association’s published procedures for a change to its constitution will be initiated. In the absence of such support, the idea will not be further pursued.
Audrey Kobayashi (Past President)
Julie Winkler (Vice President)
Derek Alderman
Ron Hagelman
John Harrington, Jr.
Thomas Maraffa
Bryon Middlekauff
Marilyn Raphael (Treasurer)
Bradley Rundquist
Grant Saff
Laura Smith
Karen Till
James Tyner
Elizabeth A. Wentz
Richard A. Wright
Jenny Zorn (Secretary)
Ron Abler (Past President, 1985-86)
Kenneth Foote (Past President, 2010-11)
Janice Monk (Past President, 2002-03)
Thomas J. Baerwald (Past President, 2008-09)
Thank you Eric, for this proposal and for recognizing how problematic the term ‘American’ is. Sadly it would make little sense to replace it with AmericaS since I suspect this is one of the groups least represented amongst international attendees after Africa (I would be curious about these stats). Indeed, the meeting of geographers of Latin America (Encuentro de Geografos de America Latina) regularly meets at the same time as the AAG, rather on purpose I believe. This year they met in Peru while the AAG met in LA. I certainly agree that it is important to keep the initials AAG, but is there no way to do that without keeping the (geographically insensitive) term American? Association of ALL Geographers? Perhaps not professional, but I put it out there in the hopes someone will be inspired to think of some other option!
I like this change, as I think it reflects the reality: Geographers with an interest in America. Yes, it has a distinct US ring to it, but I think overall, people will understand the change. No name is ever perfect, and one can always say “Well, what about … ?” However, as my AAG Paper session was attended by many from outside the US, and we now have many colleagues from the world joining the AAG, this nod to that seems respectful without overdoing the change, in my opinion.
I’ll enter a devil’s advocate argument based on my personal perception. While I do not hold such membership now, if I found it advantageous to be connected so, I could join the Royal Geographic Society or Society of South African Geographers. To me, the national (or “royal”) title would not present a disincentive for membership if I wanted to take part in the professional activities in the UK or South Africa. Is “American” in AAG (as the first initial) acting as a disincentive for international membership? In other words, is there an insensitivity in the current AAG name that thwarts membership? I’m not aware of similar concerns within the American Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America, also very large professional organizations with large international membership.
To answer Rich Quidomine’s post, the AAG is not limited to “Geographers with an interest in America”. Quite the opposite, I seem to see as much non-USA research as anything else, from both US and International scholars.
I fully support the idea of a name change- and keeping the accronym AAG. However instead of an American Association of Geographer which still retains a certain american exceptionalism, so I support a slightly revised and whimsical version of Sara’s suggestion:
Association for All Geographers
As a Canadian and a newcomer to the field of geography, I would support a name change. Perhaps we could consider ‘Association of Global Geographers’?
Great idea, Eric and Council. How about the Association of Allied Geographers?
Eric makes a strong argument for changing our name to the American Association of Geographers. The proposed name change has been discussed in Council over the years, and I’m happy to see Eric and Council bringing it up again for consideration. While there is a long history and great pride
associated with the Association of American Geographers and we should be wary of frivolous changes to time-honored traditions, we should also be sensitive to changes in our organization and the virtues of accurately representing our broad base. Essentially, the change simply rearranges terms to update the description of our organization. By retaining the same key words and maintaining the initials, AAG, there would be little disruption to our recognition and connectivity.
As Eric points out, the AAG membership is no longer composed of Americans alone. (Nor are we devoted primarily to the study of America as one comment suggests.) We are an association of geographers that is based in the Americas. With regard to complexities associated with ‘American,’ interpretation of ‘American’ remains flexible and could be inclusive in the sense of the ‘Americas’. We should be sensitive to the concerns of South Americans and ‘Norteamericanos’, that ‘America’ should be more broadly construed than the USA and Canada. The proposed change does not preclude those interpretations.
Greg Pope makes the interesting observation that other international organizations based in the USA (e.g. AGU and GSA), have no issue with describing themselves as ‘American’ organizations. Our existing name poses a different problem, in that it explicitly describes an organization OF Americans; i.e., the membership is American, whereas our organization now includes a large contingent from the eastern hemisphere. I my opinion, we should encourage continued international involvement, and this is better described by an American Association than by an Association of Americans.
There are some more urgent and meaningful issues for the President than proposing to change the name of the society.
Thanks for another thoughtful post Eric, and I look forward to the online referendum. I am drawn to Greg Pope’s excellent point that similar organizations, the American Geophysical Union (which is the largest Earth science scholarly organization and conference in the entire world), and the Geological Society of America have very large international participation and membership. And these names reflect the fact that the heavy lifting of the administration of the organization, its leadership, and a good portion of the funding (headquarters building, provision of journals, provision of the annual meeting, etc.) takes place in the United States. It is provided for by “America” for geographers worldwide. Therefore, I like your suggestion for a new AAG name, keeping the acronym, but with the switch of the “American” therein.
Personally (and as a new member) I like the AAG being the American Association of Geographers. I say we keep it the same — there are already plenty of people from outside the US in it or doing work outside the US, so it’s obviously not preventing them from joining.
I have no problem with the proposed name change but, on the other hand, I do not see any pressing need to make the change. The AAG (however named) will continue to be judged by what it accomplishes rather than what it is called. An example of this may be found in the case of the Associatiion for Computing Machinery (ACM) established in the early days of computer science. After some years the name was felt to be inappropriate by a number of people who posed good reasons for the change. Today the Association for Computing Machinery retains the old name and has a strong international component and a total membership some 20 times greater than the AAG.
Guest 2013 suggests that there are more urgent and meaningful issues that should be addressed. I agree.
I like the idea of a name change but am also sensitive to the historical and practical implications already mentioned.
The proposal also suggests a more substantive change: that of holding the annual meeting outside of the US, perhaps in its entirety or perhaps broken up into smaller meetings, with venues selected according to regional or topical interests. I realize that such a change would be radical, but many Canadian, Mexican, South American, and Caribbean cities lie within the current radius, and the opportunities afforded by such a change could outweigh the losses.
I would be interested to know where the geographic center of the AAG, as determined by the homebases of its members, currently lies. That might say something about its present purchase and purview, and questions related to them.
It’s worth noting that the current name translates into Spanish with the acronym AGA (Asociación de Geógrafos Americanos), while the suggested name would keep the acronym AAG (Asociación Americana de Geógrafos).
This already exists for researchers in the form of the IGU. But it doesn’t connect professionals, teachers and so on.
As a non-US citizen and a member of the AAG for almost three years (and hoping for decades more), I fully agree with the proposed change. I should add that keeping the national focus in the AAG would make sense because of all the AAG policy initiatives that have national scope. While these might have less relevance for people from outside the US, there is probably no way the association as currently is could somehow support them ‘on the side’, or – like psychologists did twenty five years ago with APA and APS – split into a more national professional/policy-oriented organization plus a more global science/academic-oriented organization.
Indeed an interesting discussion.
From a European perspective, most of the ‘political’ activity of the AAG is indeed ‘American’. This is of course is the main remit of the association and so I believe the name should not be changed.
In Europe we have not had such an agency working in the European Commission, Parliament and Council of Europe until relatively recently. In 2009 we re-formed our association – the European Association of Geographers (EUROGEO http://www.eurogeography.eu) to fill this obvious gap but also a a forum for geographers to meet and address items from a European perspective.
On the one hand we sought to offer support to those geographers in Europe who did not have a ‘national’ association to work with, but also we are actively operating at a European-level where more and more decisions about areas like agriculture, the environment, transport,
planning and many other aspects of geographical relevance are being made. We believe that without an active voice in Europe, geographers will continue to be invisible in decision making processes there and no other group is doing this work. So the ‘geo-political’ perspective of the AAG is of fundamental importance. An aspect often hidden from most members.
In EUROGEO we believe there is an urgent need to unite major organisations who are active in promoting and developing geography. Associations need to be supporting each other and learning from one another. We need to share strategies and approaches and ensure that we become coordinated in our activities and actions. Many of us are also involved to some extent in the International Geographic Union (IGU). What role should a body like this have? It is certainly time for a summit where those working to advance geography (at continental / global level) get together and work this out.
For information, a group of us wrote about some of these international challenges at:
Donert, K., Hay, I., Theobald, R., Valiunaite, V., & Wakefield, K. (2011). International collaboration in organizations promoting geography education: Exploring success and acknowledging limitations. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 35(3), 445-455 (http://tinyurl.com/c8hxl5x)
Karl Donert (President, EUROGEO)
Actually, keeping the name the same would be to keep it as the Association of American Geographers which is very different to Eric’s proposed (and in my mind preferred) American Association of Geographers – do you see the semantic difference? One is an association of american geographers, the other just an association (based in America) of geographers …
Good point! I even typed it that way when I was thinking about it.
I am really not bothered about the name of the AAG, and they already hold annual meetings outside the continent occasionally (eg Toronto). I was a member for 25 years mainly living elsewhere and the current name does not dampen enthusiasm. A mild alteration could be considered, but there are more urgent priorities like the rapid emergence of OA publishing and its possible effects on the AAG.
I am not sure too much can be done about names anyhow? The problem is that the AAG cannot encroach on the terrain of the Latin Americans or Canadians and there is the IGU as well.
Personally I would like the IGU and some of the national associations to merge. Or all the Americas associations to merge (both unlikely).
Pressing point – would you change the name of the Annals under the current proposals for example? (it is currently quite lengthy but has a long heritage)
Are there any more details available about that 1904 meeting? I have always been curious about why AAG was not named the American Association of Geographers from the beginning.
Such as?
I wish to echo Greg Pope’s concern about Rich Quodomine’s proposition: there are hundreds of AAG members who are US citizens but who don’t focus on the US in their work. And then there are, of course, also several hundred non-US citizen AAG members whose work is equally focused on other countries and regions (like mine). However, this is precisely why I prefer “American Association of Geographers” to the current name. So, Eric, you have my vote.
without discrediting Eric’s initiative, I can offer at least one of significantly more interest to the next generation of, let’s call them recent human geography Ph.D.s from US institutions: how has the financial crisis affect the tenure-track and adjunct geography landscape? Where are the new jobs, and in what subdisciplines/hot issues du jour? What effect might this have on the direction of of the discipline? How many have taken jobs in the UK or outside the U.S.? Would love to know if the AAG cares at all about these questions.
I support the proposed name change, not least because I am not American and am a member but because it clashes with the perceptions of many observers, who assume that the name is in fact the “American Association of Geographers” anyway. And this isn’t limited to non-geographers, I had one professor and member refer to it this was as well.
For the record, the official translation of the AAG’s name into Spanish is in fact Asociación Americana de Geógrafos, which is in wide use and found as such on documents translated by AAG. This was adopted in 2005 with the express purpose of retaining the acronym and to reflect the international character of the AAG.
Are you kidding me? You poll the entire membership to ask “Should we switch A with A”? What a complete and utter waste of time. A name change will not contribute *anything* to the “advancement of geography”. That is our mission, correct? Please stop this nonsense and return to efforts that will actually improve the discipline.
I think you inadvertently contradicted yourself. The question is indeed whether to CHANGE the name to the American Association of Geographers, which you say you like.
It’s high time we changed our name to the American Association of Geographers. Thanks Eric for bringing it up again. It would be great to get it done.
To be honest, I thought that already was the name. Despite being a member, I guess I just never checked closely and that seemed like it should be the name. So thus I support it!
Makes sense. I’m British; live and work in America; am a member of AAG but clearly not American. I do not live in Britain but I am a Fellow or member of a number of British societies plus a few international ones. Does the geography of membership mean anything any more? Not really. The geography of the ‘home’ of the society seems relevant to me though because of the history and the various offices of the organisation. Either way just make a decision and then move on to more substantive stuff.
For long, I’ve thought of the AAG as the American Association of Geographers. I’m a member, have been for a long while, and it wasn’t until this happened that I realized I have never called the AAG the Association of American Geographers. I also maintain membership in the Canadian Association of Geographers, and everybody asks “are you going to AAG or CAG”, not the full acronym. So, kudos for changing the name to a more inclusive one. Signed, someone who studies North America as a region and is tired of everyone forgetting that America
Ugh. Hit too fast…
… and is tired of everyone forgetting that America is a continent, not a country 😉
I think this name change makes a lot of sense and strongly support it. Two points worth mentioning. Firstly, the argument that we have more important issues to deal with, and should therefore dismiss a name change proposal, is problematic because it falsely presupposes that there is a zero-sum game in which consideration of a name change somehow prevents us from also addressing other important issues (such as the lack of tenure-track positions or working conditions of adjuncts, as Dominic mentions). This view also ignores the fact that naming plays an important role in shaping the collective identity of an organization and is therefore not inconsequential to its overall mission as an institution. Secondly, I’m sympathetic to most critiques of American exceptionalism, yet, in this case, it seems to me that other countries in the Americas can refer to their associations with a variant of their country-name, as in Brazilian, Canadian, Mexican, Chilean, etc., whereas the US does not have an equivalent term—as in United-Statesian.
Sara you did forget Brazil, which is a country where the Portuguese language is the local language. Your comment makes people believe that the LUSOPHONE Brazil is not inside the Americas. BTW Latin America is an outdated term (should be not used in GEOGRAPHY). Latin America for most of people is only the Spanish speaking countries. And Latin America is a BIASED term and for the Geographical World Today is not GEOGRAPHICAL at all (sounds more historical). About the change of name from AAG I agree, but must be a name who includes USA inside, because started over here. In short we should worry more about GEOGRAPHY and GEOGRAPHY EDUCATION. The world needs it badly!
Bryan great idea. I like the AGG. Super! They should take this idea.
Mark I like that idea too.
What about AWG: Associaiton of World Geographers?