The recent growth of interest in social geography once again raises the question of the field's latent ambiguity. Despite a proliferation of empirical studies, there is neither a well-developed body of theory nor explicit discussion of philosophical underpinnings. More conspicuous is the complete equivocation concerning the relative roles of spatial form and social process. Review articles over the past decade have increasingly inclined to the view that while the map may be the first step it should not be the last word.² Yet the precise avenues for process studies have not been explicitly discussed and even current research seems preoccupied with the `frail structure"³ of spatial fact rather than social process. Pahl's inclusive definition of social geography remains more a declaration of faith than of actuality: "… the processes and patterns involved in an understanding of socially defined populations in their spatial setting";⁴ more appropriate is Buttimer's less specific statement, "… a multi-faceted perspective on the spatial organization of mankind".⁵