I rarely weigh in on these forums but I have been reading Deleuze and
his interlocuters in both English and French in some depth for about a
decade now.
I think the current work in geography that engages Deleuze is largely
thought provoking and rigorous, and actually speaks back, adding
something to our understanding of geography and Deleuzian inspired
frameworks .
I am sure for those encountering this scholarship from the outside --
(I include those who I suspect have in actual fact read very little of
“Deleuze and those French continental philosophers”) this may appear
to be “parroting”...
but then, if we were to look back to the 1970s through the 1990s we
might find many now well established geographers of agglomeration
theory and the like suffered similar occasional attacks on their own
rich and nuanced work, and were similarly accused of being “not real
geographers” who “merely parroted” the work of Marx, Robinson,
Ricardo, or even Marshall... or dared to think beyond the confines of
established doctrine, proposing such “preposterous” ideas like
studying industrial growth in the Los Angeles region...
I’m just sayin’.....
|