Er...I hate to break this to you, Paul, but there's this thing called,
like, Radical Geography, involving such 'minority' postitions as
structuralist Marxism (your own position of choice, I take it),
post-marxism, post-structuralism, feminism...I could go on, but I really
can't be bothered.
Your critiques critiqued, one by one:
"1. It refuses to criticise the exisiting order."
I think you confuse social reality with academic perceptions of social
reality. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that there is an insidious ideological
hegemony (don't conflate the two: read Raymond Williams and Antonion
Gramsci, throw away Louis Althusser, take the point of Michel Foucault's
notion of orders of discouse but be skeptical of his scientism) amongst
western governments, but it is not accepted by all academics.
2. It demeans and marginalises opposition to the dominant ideology.
See above. There is a rich - although problematic - body of literature on
the radical potential of marginal identities and voices - bell hooks, Homi
Bhabbha, Rob Shields, Edward Soja, Christ Philo...etc.
3. Critical geographers are hostile to outside critics (such as myself).
Point taken - to a certain extent. Your problem is, though, Paul, that many
of your critiques simply don't hold water because you demonstrate
(deliberate?) ignorance of any material that doesn't support your argument.
Plus, you refuse to enter any kind of dialogue, prefering polemics of
'radical' vs. 'conservative' and deliberate shock tactics which cannot help
but alienate.
>
>4. They promote new forms of social oppression...workfare, meritocracy,
gentrification. Many promote military interventionism in support of their
values (human rights).
Yeah - but many don't. The point (I thought) about academia is that, as a
space of relative social autonomy - and I don't mean this in naive,
fetishised sense, but take my cue from Bourdieu concerning the historical
emergence of separate cultural-economic spheres with their own relatively
independent logics and rules of the game - academia makes space for
multiple and conflicting viewpoints. Plus, on a personal level, I happen to
agree with military intervention in some cases, and this is no _more_ and
no _less_ 'ideological' than your position.
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's intrinsically right-wing about the arm and gay and lesbian
identities? I don't remember Lenin and Stalin dissolving the Soviet
army...and I don't recall any recent data that statistically correlated
political attitudes with sexual identity.
I guess the point of this extended wafffle is to ask this one question:
Who annointed you God?
Graham Gardner
Graham Gardner
Institute of Geography & Earth Sciences
University of Wales
Aberystwyth
Ceredigion
SY23 3DB
Wales
UK
Tel: 0044 (0)1970 622606
Fax: 0044 (0)1970 622659
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
|