Behavioural geographers had instigated a search for models of understanding spatial patterns which did not assume that all people behaved in exactly the same way in any given set of circumstances. Concepts such as the Phenomenal Environment were offered as a way of describing the physical reality of the external world, while it was suggested that the ways in which 'phenomenal' facts entered consciousness and were arranged into patterns and acquired social value could be termed the Behavioural Environment (by Kirk, 1963). The physical reality of the world was only important in so far as it became a part of the psycho-physical field of the Behavioural Environment. This, then, was a people-centred understanding of the relationship between people, the environment and behaviour. Despite these origins and despite their wishes, behavioural geographers developed their interpretations within the framework of logical positivism and scientific methodology.1 Subterranean understandings of the workings of the mind were smuggled in as geographers looked to science to explain the overt spatial behaviour of individuals and groups. While it was denied that Man was either rational or economic, (implicitly) he was a rat or a robot, though with all the imperfections these 'characters' imply. Ironically, behavioural geography had placed Man at the centre of a world in which he seemed to have no place: in the exploration of terrae incognitae, men had somehow lost their hearts and minds.