Posted on behalf of Donna Rubinoff. This is an important issue for
American geographers in particular, but also for critical geographers
from many other places.
lawrence
>Subject: Fwd: Future of the Discipline- post 9/11
>
>
>*******************************************************
>
>Colleagues:
>
>I write to call your attention to an AAG/NSF initiative that may have
>far-reaching implications for the future direction of research and =
>funding
>in our discipline. My hope is that we can organize some kind of
>response/intervention.
>
>Last week in L.A. I attended the AAG business meeting and the
>AAG-organized panel on "Geographical Dimensions of Terrorism," where I
>learned about the initiative of Susan Cutter, Tom Wilbanks, and Doug
>Richardson, in conjunction with the NSF, to create a "research agenda =
>for
>the discipline" that will help shape future research funding and bring
>geography closer to policymakers responsible for responding to the =
>recent
>terrorist attacks on the US.
>
>As you may know, in response to a call for proposals by the NSF, the AAG
>organized a workshop in January to develop such an agenda. At the panel =
>in
>L.A., they presented a draft report of "research themes, action items, =
>and
>policy issues" that came out of the workshop.
>
>I am extremely concerned about the direction that the project is moving
>in. The presentation by Cutter, Wilbanks, and Richardson overwhelmingly
>stressed the relevance of geography in *responding* to future attacks,
>helping prosecute the war in Afghanistan, and "restoring" security.
>Emphasis was placed on role that geography might play in developing
>information technologies that would help in securing US borders, =
>defending
>against bioterrorism, supporting the Office of Homeland Security, and
>supporting first responders.
>
>Most disturbing was the way that the presenters de-emphasized the =
>section
>on research about "the root causes of terrorism" in favor of =
>technological
>fixes to security and military issues, such as "enabl[ing] more
>sophisticated georeferenced monitoring of human activities and =
>movements."
>
>Furthermore, the section on root causes is infused with a similar
>techno-scientific rationality of control that runs counter to much work =
>in
>geography, especially by critical geographers. I was frankly shocked at
>several of the "research questions" in this section that purported to
>address the "root causes of terrorism." For example one reads, "if
>businesses and workers potentially become more at risk in major cities,
>how will this affect locational decisions and processes of urban and
>suburban sprawl?" Another asks, "Can we improve our understanding of how
>borders function, especially flows of goods and people, and whether
>borders constrain or enhance trans-jurisidictional responses to issues
>such as illegal immigration, disasters, refugee movements, or
>environmental degradation?" I simply do not see how these address root
>causes in any way.
>
>In the whole document, only a dozen words address "the differential
>impacts of globalization." The most promising item, from the perspective
>of actually understanding "root causes of terrorism," is marred by an
>underlying logic that assumes that those "root causes" lie in the =
>failure
>of people to be brought in line with US geopolitical and strategic
>goals: "How does a fundamental lack of geographic understanding of the
>world and our place in it foster *dissension* in societies including our
>own?"
>
>I'm afraid that the resulting document will do more to reshape geography
>in the image of current US government goals and policies than it will to
>enable geographers to help reshape those goals and policies along more
>just and sustainable lines. While many of the research themes are not
>objectionable in and of themselves, I am worried about the long-term
>effects the final report may have on the shape of the discipline,
>especially through its impact on funding agencies such as the NSF. =
>Cutter,
>Wilbanks, and Richardson were gloating over the fact that a preliminary
>draft prepared by Richard Aspinall of the NSF was already being "carried
>in the pockets" of policymakers in Washington. Aspinall, who was a
>discussant at the panel in L.A., praised the initiative for its "quality
>of insight," dubbed it "a model response," stressed how it "scored =
>points
>for geography," how it gave geography a new "leadership role," and =
>claimed
>that "the reputation of geography was enhanced" by it.
>
>I know that many people on this list were at the "Public Space,
>Globalization, and the 'New' Security in the Aftermath of the WTC" panel
>that featured Neil Smith, Ghazi Falah, Ed Soja, Cindi Katz, James =
>Bohland,
>and Gerard Toal. Towards the end of the discussion, one audience member
>asked what geographers can do to affect the direction of US policy. I
>submit that one way is to fight to redirect this project so that the
>perspectives and concerns of critical geographers get included in the
>final report
>
>Many of you are much more "connected" than I am, so I'm appealing for =
>help
>in responding to this initiative. I think if we can mount a strong,
>organized response, we can have a progressive impact on a document that
>currently threatens to wipe 30 years of critical geography off the map.
>
>Please forward to other lists you're on.
>
>Thanks,
>Rich Heyman
>
>PhD Candidate (ABD)
>Department of Geography
>University of Washington
>
>Instructor in English and Geography
>University of Minnesota, Morris
>
|