The purpose of this article is to extract from the COVID-19 pandemic a lesson for geographers: although without intending (or being possible) to simply go back to the past, it is necessary to re-value, nevertheless, the very quintessence of the identity of the geographical discourse, which has been characterised by a way of building epistemic objects that is committed to a dialogue between social research (represented by what we usually call‘human geography’) and natural research (represented by what we usually call ‘physical geography’). This project, presently called ‘environmentalisation,’ does not aim at anything overly ambitious: there is no case here for an exclusionary thesis in the style ‘geography should be this, and nothing else’; in fact, it just defends the idea that an approach such as that of environmental geography, resulting from an attempt at ‘environmentalisation,’ must have its place assured. Environmental geography, being committed to the construction of hybrid epistemic objects, allows us to mobilise the interfaces and knowledge necessary to deal with complex tasks such as the analysis of the short and long-term effects of the pandemic (among many other issues). However, the environmental geography project not only has to deal with intellectual challenges (integrating what knowledge, how and for what purpose?), but, in the end, it must also face political obstacles: the concrete power relations in the academic world and the zeal with which ‘borders’ and ‘territories’ are patrolled and defended, not to mention the resistance of many researchers to leave their thematic and theoretical-methodological comfort zones.
What is
Area
to physical and environmental geography?
