Culture in the context of F. Ratzel's anthropogeographical teachings
Authors:   Saint-Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation, Vyzhletsova Natalya V. 
Published: November 2024

An important place in the interdisciplinary debates of the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries belongs to F. Ratzel’s anthropogeography. From the perspective of F. Ratzel’s anthropogeography, culture is: 1) the sum of material and spiritual achievements, among which material culture is the “skeleton” of spiritual progress; 2) the application of “a piece of land”, eventually growing into spiritual activity; 3) a synonym of civilization as “citizenship”. Culture is the result of the accumulation, consolidation and “enlargement” of the experience of generations. The creators of cultural innovations are individuals. The development of a nation depends on natural conditions, which can have beneficial and constraining effects on culture. Ratzel distinguishes three types of cultures in history, the difference between them lies in their ability to develop and to relate to each other. At the same time, the cultural differences override the fundamental unity of the human race. Man is by nature a restless and unstable creature. The movement of peoples, internal and external, visible and hidden (infiltration) rules history. As a consequence, cultural boundaries are inherently unstable and in a state of constant “wandering”. Another fundamental component of the historical process, along with fluidity and development, is the links between peoples, countries and cultures. Based on this, Ratzel divides all peoples into passive (closed, hindering communication) and active (open, entering into and maintaining communication). In essence, Ratzel’s scientific legacy refers to the process of diffusion of culture, although the concept itself appeared later. The similarity in the features of material culture and traditions (“the criterion of form”) is explained by the common origin and further movement of these elements from one place to another. At the same time, the received elements have to be retained and assimilated. Finally, in order to designate cultural areas with the same climatic conditions, Ratzel introduces the concept of “cultural zones” / “circles”, which is further developed in diffusionism. The transfer of ideas within a circle takes place from the centre to the periphery. The strength of the impact of ideas depends on the length of the diffusion path, the degree of cohesion of states, the size of the cultural circle, and the quality of the concentric zones. A critical assessment of the research “enthusiasm” of the pioneers of comparative studies of cultures, including F. Ratzel, overlooks the fundamental contribution they made to the formation of socio-cultural anthropology. Ratzel, who implemented an anthropogeographical perspective in his teachings, is at the origin of the main line in the development of socio-cultural anthropology, which led to the formation of culturology as a science. This interrelation and continuity is reflected in the definition of the subject of culturology in L. White’s project. The latter, along with the analysis of structure and functions of culture and its evolution, included those diffuse processes, which F. Ratzel started to study, into the field of subject studies of the science of culture.