Like many others I have been thinking about how to respond to the Shell
vote for a while now. The conclusion I kept coming to was that while my
heart said resign and have nothing to do with the RGS-IBG, my head told me
I should remain a member. This of course hasn't helped me much, but recent
exchanges here have helped me to clarify why i feel like this.
Adam pointed out that the nature of civil society is surely that we are all
contributors to/ members of institutions we only partially like. I think
the key point is that each of us personally does what we can to avoid and
limit this situation. Where membership is voluntary, as with the RGS-IBG,
this is easier than where it is not - as with paying taxes. Those of us
who don't like the ethical stance of the major banks, bank with the co-op.
We drive past Shell petrol stations and we join and leave the political
organisations we feel (un)comfortable with. These are obviously all
personal decisions made on the basis of how we feel as individuals about
the organisations concerned.
Similar decisions inevitably arise now over the RGS-IBG, but I think there
are two key differences. One is that as of now we don't have an
alternative organisation to go to. The situation is not like changing
banks or going to another petrol station. Like Tracey and Mike I feel that
if we leave we leave completely. i wouldn't be comfortable with leaving
but still going to conferences, writing and refereeing for journals etc,
etc. Also like them I think it would be difficult to set up an alternative
in the short term, but that doesn't mean we should organise one over the
longer term...
The other key difference is that we are not acting as individuals. We are
acting as a key constituency within the organisation - or at least within
the RHED bit of it. Members of this forum, and those sympathetic to it,
actually run most of the study (oops, research) groups, and control what
the group's funds are used for; we write the majority of articles in the
journals and we give the majority of papers at the conferences. Through
these activities, whether we like it or not, we give a considerable input
to the shape and direction of contemporary academic geography, and we
provide the platform for those coming behind us from the postgraduate
ranks. I'm not sure i want to give this input up, at least until we have
something as forceful elsewhere.
I think what I'm saying is that it is incumbent on us now to act as
something more than a collection of individuals, and to recognise that this
debate and the actions stemming from it are part of a collective political
force which has some significance within academic geography. The situation
is slightly different to an individual moral one, and I think this is why
my heart and head are going in different directions. I think I'm also
saying that i don't want to take the decision on whether to resign or not
purely as an individual, but feel it should be done as part of a more
collective political action.
Professor Mark Goodwin
Institute of Earth Studies
Llandinam Building
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth SY23 3DB
Tel. National code 01970; International (+44) 1970
Direct line: 622630; Secretary: 622606; Fax: 622659
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|