Tom, why bother?
James
********************************
James DeFilippis
Department of Geography
King's College London
Strand Campus
London WC2R 2LS
[log in to unmask]
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Tom Slater wrote:
> Paul Treanor wrote:
>
> >
> >Why is critical geography so harmful?
> >
> >1. It refuses to criticise the exisiting order. That applies especially to
> >the
> >ideology of liberal democracy and neoliberalism, which is often accepted as
> >self-evident truth. For instance, that a nation must compete economically
> >with
> >other nations, or that nations must trade. They accept unquestioningly the
> >mythology of liberalism - for instance that the liberation of concentration
> >camps was good, and that the US soldiers were the 'good guys'.
>
> I am surprised you have reached this conclusion. A lot of work done in
> critical geography has come from its engagement with Marxist thought which
> is highly critical of liberal democracy and neo-liberalism. Have a look at
> Noel Castree’s recent commentary in Environment and Planning A 32 (12),
> 2000. He rightly states that ‘Anglophone geography has a larger and more
> vibrant Left community than at any time in its history…..what is so pleasing
> is the sheer range, sophistication and seriousness of much contemporary Left
> geographical scholarship’. Moreover, he argues that while more needs to be
> done to 'open up' the academy (precisely the theme of the conference which
> seems to bother you), the spatial emphasis which geographers provide has
> attracted attention from beyond disciplinary boundaries. In this respect,
> critical human geographies are essential to geographical progress.
>
> >
> >2. It demeans and marginalises opposition to the dominant ideology.
> >Proposals
> >of opposition are treated as absurd, and their supporters as cranks or
> >ill-educated. It is impossible in the climate of left academic / critical
> >geography to propose the death penalty for the rich, for instance.
>
>
> How does it 'demean and marginalise'? It’s hard to take your arguments
> seriously unless you explain why, with examples from the critical geography
> literature.
>
>
> >
> >3. Critical geographers are hostile to outside critics (such as myself).
>
> See above. You need examples, otherwise your frequent posts come across as
> ill-informed rants. If critical geographers seem hostile to you, then you
> might want to think a little harder about how you frame your arguments, or
> you will remain locked in monologue.
>
> >
> >4. They promote new forms of social oppression, the type associated with
> >the
> >New Democrats, New Labour or the continental social-liberal coalitions -
> >workfare, meritocracy, gentrification. Many promote military
> >interventionism
> >in support of their values (human rights).
>
> Which critical geographers ‘promote’ gentrification? You are way off mark
> here. I know you are a subscriber to the gentrification discussion group –
> what about Rowland Atkinson’s recent episode with the director from Oddbins
> liquor stores, who asked him for a list of gentrifying districts in the UK
> so they could decide where to locate their stores? Rowland replied saying
> that his list is ‘not for sale’, because of his experiences during his
> empirical investigations in London, where he observed many negative effects
> of gentrification on low-income populations. This, for me, is a critical
> geographical response to an enticing request which should be applauded.
>
> >
> >5. In some cases they engage in right-wing propaganda: the praise of the
> >British Army on this list for instance, or the quasi-ethnic group identity
> >promoted by gay and lesbian academics.
> >
> >
>
> What do you mean, ‘quasi-ethnic group identity?’ What about the
> collection edited by David Bell and Gill Valentine called ‘Geographies of
> Sexualities’? Most of the papers in this book concentrate on how spaces and
> places are experienced by populations marginalized because of their
> sexualities, and tell compelling tales of resistance to the dominant
> ideologies which you believe critical geographers do not address. If this
> makes ‘group identity’ it is only in the most positive, emancipatory sense.
>
> I hope this might give you a little more to think about, Paul. I believe
> that there are vast amounts of examples to which subscribers to this group
> could direct your attention to show that your posting is both invalid and, I
> think, bordering on offensive.
>
> Tom Slater, King’s College London.
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
|