There are many gradients of Left (whether you want to use that term or not) -- and anarchy, which is what you seem to be proposing, Paul, is merely further along that spectrum than perhaps some of the other leftist ideologies that you seem to despise. Nevertheless, Noel Castree's leftist and academic credentials are without question (whether he's your kind of leftist -- or academic, for that matter -- or not) and are well known in this community, while yours, Paul, remain hidden behind a flurry of rhetoric. I'm not suggesting that we all need to swap CVs before anyone can post anything to this list -- and I certainly think you're entitled to your opinion . . . but that's because I'm a liberal-democrat (there, I've said it!) who actually believes in human rights such as the right to free speech. And for what it's worth (and I think it's worth a lot) there is fortunately room for anarchist thought in critical geography -- although there unfortunately doesn't seem to be too muc!
h !
room for critical geography in y
our anarchist thought . . .
Becky
In a message dated Tue, 20 Feb 2001 5:19:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, Paul Treanor <[log in to unmask]> writes:
<< Tom Slater wrote:
> 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.
I did. If critical geography has indeed attracted the attention of the Third
Way ideologist Anthony Giddens, then that ought to give you all cause for
concern. Or to inquire about consultancy work, depending on the state of your conscience.
Noel Castree's commentary does seem typical of the worst in critical
geography. (I never heard of him before, and I only use the example because
Tom Slater referred to it). The heroes of the story, for him, are usually the
villains for me (David Harvey for instance). And the list of Left geography
themes is a catalogue of wrong thought - "Marxism, feminsm, queer theory, postcolonialism".
I avoid the word Left, it only confuses. I know that many academic Marxists
understand Marxism as - for instance - global solidarity with the struggle in
Chiapas for democracy, freedom, and human rights. But that is not a Marxist
programme: these are liberal demands. I remember reading about early
post-independence Irish politics, that people knew only two poltical
ideologies: English liberalism and romantic nationalism. Accordingly, all
political demands, even from self-declared Marxists, were formulated in these
terms. In a comparable way, feminists, postcolonialists, queer theorists, and
Marxists in the western academy reproduce the liberal ideology that surrounds them.
A break with that ideology requires that they abandon beliefs, which they have
been brought up to regard as sacred. This is what is missing from Castree's
commentary and his earlier article (Environment and Planning A 32. pp.
955-970) - and it is missing from most 'academic Left'. The 'shock' is the
effect: ask yourselves *why* you are shocked, by unexpected remarks about the
Holocaust? Is it not taboo? Is that not where ideology will hide - behind the
taboos, the unspeakable?
As a *minimum* a critical geography should reject democracy, human rights,
political rights, free speech, political freedom, and academic freedom. These
are not sacred truths, they all come straight from the NATO Press Office. This
is how Madeleine Albright thinks. If you can't even break with that, give it
up. Or call yourself a liberal-democrat, like you are, and stop using labels
like Left or Critical.
I don't see that minimal rejection anywhere in Castree's comment, or in what
he sees as evidence of the vibrancy of the Left. Castree writes (958-959)
"Since the mid-to-late 1970's, the major western countries have undergone an
economic, political, and social sea-change. Put simply, the shift to 'free
market economics', the dismantling of social welfare programmes, and the
institutionalisation of new forms of individual and group identification have
together undone the post-war social-democratic consensus."
A sea-change, like the weather, like an earthquake. An unavoidable "shift" to
free market economics. But Castree, and everyone else, knows this is nonsense.
The policies in the West changed because Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan
were elected. They were elected democratically, by majorities who fully
understood their policies. This is the problem: that 'critical' observers like
Noel Castree have come to regard democratic elections as a natural phenomenon
like the tides: immutable, inevitable, beyond discussion.
30 000 people die every year in the United States from gunshot wounds. 40% of
households have a gun in the house. The current President of the United States
was elected by what he would denounce as "transparent electoral fraud" if it
happened in Cuba. It took weeks to decide who 'won'. Yet not a shot was fired
for political reasons. No revolution, no insurgency, no shot in the air,
nothing. That is an extraordinary degree of political legitimacy, without
doubt the highest in history.
So if there was to be a critical approach, that is a good place to start. Why
have a free market economy, simply because the people chose it? However, I
don't see any enthousiasm for this issue in 'critical' circles.
--
Paul Treanor
>>
|