Fraser,
Forgive me, but this does rather come from the 'either do everything, or
nothing' school of argument. The reason I believe that the IEHG has been
chosen in this particular instance has nothing to do (necessarily) with the
overall importance of the book itself, but it does make a convenient and,
perhaps, fairly iconic starting point. Having said which, the arguments put
forward by Rob Kitchin as to the vital nature of this project indicate how
useful it is as a pressure point.
I am very proud (as someone who hasn't been invited to contribute to the
IEHG and in all probability never will be!) that distinguished colleagues at
Newcastle who stand to lose a fair amount by such a principled stand have
chosen to take it. The list of very distinguished geographers provided by
Rob as dedicated contributors to the IEHG, on the other hand, would seem at
the very least to be geographers who have little to lose and much to gain by
taking such a stand - this is, of course, a matter for them.
As to the matter of the journals you mention, knowing them as I do I'm sure
that the signatories to the IEHG boycott will have made their own decisions
in that respect. Whatever they decide, however, whether or not they continue
to contribute to ER journals does not invalidate the action that they have
taken as regards the IEHG, which might in many respects be seen as a warning
shot. I doubt very much whether the signatories would expect colleagues to
attract legal penalties in order to join them in a boycott, but to think
about their own position and how they might make a contribution to what may
very well prove to be a rolling and prolonged campaign.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of ethics. Critical Geographers
should, above all people, be aware that the arms industry, particularly the
UK arms industry, is not just 'another' industry. For my money (as for other
campaigners and activists) the arms industry is the moral equivalent of the
slave trade, and those who choose to be involved with it bear that
responsibility. As someone whose research is dominated by the theme of
corruption, the arms trade in the UK is particularly fascinating as the
clearest example of geopolitical priapism, driven outside of all
considerations of ethics and economics by the absurd, white, male obsession
with power and influence.
From the immediate post-war period when the Defence Export Service
Organization was set up by the UK government as little more than an
institution for facilitating bribery, the arms trade has grown into a
festering foreign policy phallus, held erect with ever more desperation by
increasing amounts of corruption-viagra. Successive UK governments have
abandoned all economic and governmental principle (particularly the Thatcher
governments and the monumental corruption involved in the al-Yamamah
project), merely to grovel before what Attorney-General Goldsmith described
this year so memorably as the 'national interest', for which he personally
abandoned the rule of law as being of lesser importance...
I have no doubt as to the importance of the IEHG project and under other
circumstances I personally would be looking forward to it with some
anticipation. I note with some concern, however, the list of benefits to be
expected from the project by Rob Kitchin in his last e-mail: "The
Encyclopedia will include detailed entries on every field of human
geography, philosophy and theory, key concepts, methods and practices,
biographies of notable geographers, and geographical thought
and praxis in different parts of the world." No mention of ethics or
morality there, then.
Do the right thing.
Jon Cloke
Newcastle University
|