Michael Fisher wrote.......
"Somewhat curiously,some senior "critical" geographers are involved in
administering and enforcing this law......It is perhaps ironic that as
critical geography and geographers have become more numerous and influencial
within the academic "mainstream", they have begun to adopt, however
unintentionally and unconsciously, some of the traits of the "geography
establishment" they had sought to criticise: a pragmatic, career-driven
submission to unchangable political and economic "realities".
Why is this curious? It's a well-known phenomenon, particularly in political
circles. Thus, staunch socially-progressive supporters of the post-war
labour party such as Cecil Parkinson and Woodrow Wyatt (who was actually a
labour MP at one point) drifted in an extreme right-wing direction, and in
more recent years in New Labour, screaming trots like Steven Byers and
Alastair Milburn become.... oh dear, it's not a pretty thought, is it? Derek
Hatton, anybody?
It would be more realistic to say that as they have adopted the 'traits of
the "geography establishment"', so these "critical geographers" have become
more numerous and influential in the mainstream, rather than the other way
round. The few who start off leftie and stay lefty are really the ones
no-one would really want, I think, like that shameless self-publicist and
party-wrecker Tony Benn, for instance, whose interview with Saddam must have
made even the remnants of the RCP gag, or John Pilger, whose increasingly
shrill and insane imaginings long ago left the realm of reality....
Michael Fisher also wrote:
"These are very real pressures, given added ideological weight by
the unspoken view of many on the "left" that there is very little point
in discussing critical/radical ideas (unless they are presented in an
RAE-friendly journal), because there is very little chance of those
ideas having a significant concrete political impact."
This for me is perhaps more to the point, and one of the age-old problems
with radical/progressive activity of any kind, where the argument runs very
roughly: "I became involved in this issue because it affected me directly
and gave me a platform I hadn't had before, but unless I personally see some
results soon, I'm going to take my bat and my ball and I'm going home." In
other words, anyone can be an activist when it's a trendy, fun thing to do
and you can wear your hair long, be rude and get laid, but it's at times
like nowadays when it really counts. It's also known as the "I didn't sell
out the revolution, the revolution sold me out so I'm going to go and start
my own PR agency" argument, after which you start sending your children to
public schools and then there really is no hell deep enough for you.
This is also a problem of perspective, which the old left and the Stop the
War coalition are particularly hostage to. Basically it means that protest
and resistance can really only be envisaged in certain ways, which means
strikes, direct action and big noisy protests, but no form of positive
engagement, and no positive alternatives that don't involve an overthrow of
global capitalism that is never going to happen through these means, by this
organization, or perhaps even at all...... thus, when you have a massive
success like the London peace march on Feb 15th (which I trust you all
attended) and people turn round to you and say "let's seize the momentum -
what shall we do next?", you scratch your head and go "Errrmm.... build
solidarity and.. and... and have another great big march next month!"
Because you basically don't have any ideas that didn't come out of a
socialist worker newspaper you read 15 years ago, and which certainly didn't
tell you how to think originally or come up with something new.
cheers!
Jon Cloke
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
|