Hi all,
I share many of the sentiments expressed in Prof. Hannah's email.
However, while there are undoubtedly some very useful discussions on
this list I think it may be reasonable to assume that one of the
principal reasons there are quite so many 'lurkers' is because the
Crit-Geog-Forum has become the de-facto announcements list.
What I would tentatively suggest is something I have heard mooted
'offline' a few times at several past RGS-IBG conferences: the community
should consider setting up a human geography announcements list.
I am sure that many of us would remain subscribers of Crit Geog Forum
for those reasons outlined by others that have responded but such a
(new) list would perhaps open the possiblity of more discussion on this
list by moving the announcements to an alternative venue.
I offer this only as a suggestion and I can understand many reasons that
fellow subscribers might have for disagreeing. Nevertheless, it could
perhaps offer the opportunity to renew this list as a site for (more)
discussion of critical geography.
With good wishes,
Sam Kinsley
On 20/07/2012 13:33, Matthew Hannah [mch] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Like most people on the forum, I end up deleting the majority of entries
> without reading them carefully. Few of us are going to be interested in
> the entire range of themes offered up for consideration. There is
> certainly some acrimonious debate, but I don't find it to be dominant in
> the open discussions of the forum itself. As Andrew Law notes, there
> may be more nastiness behind the scenes for those who venture a
> contestable comment, which isn't a good thing. But, as in the present
> case, the acrimony itself usually gets thematised shortly after it
> appears publicly.
>
> My main reason for subscribing is to keep tabs on this 'semi-public'
> level of geographical debate so that I can suggest particular strands of
> discussion to undergraduates looking for an essay topic. Most of my
> students who have chosen to look at a CRIT-GEOG discussion have gotten a
> lot out of the demonstration that professional geographers are also
> people for whom particular issues or events elicit personal anger,
> dismay, empathy or other emotions. To their credit, they usually don't
> conclude that geographical debate is therefore completely irrational.
> But it does help them to see how reason and various non-rational
> motivations intertwine and inform each other.
>
> Given how thoroughly (especially British) undergraduates are instructed
> these days in the centrality of affect and emotion to human social life,
> and in the role of (ant-)agonism in 'the political', we shouldn't be at
> all uneasy about revealing these dimensions of our own 'shop talk'. If
> the overall benefit of following the forum doesn't outweigh the
> irritation, we are always welcome to follow Phil in un-subscribing.
>
> Matt Hannah
|