Apologies to those Forum readers who aren't caught up in the politics of
British geography ...
Although the Shell vote was decisive, as Steve Pile points out the messages
that should be read from it are more mixed: The constituency for change is
large, the vote was democratically conducted and the RGS now has a set of
strong ethical guidelines. It is also worth pointing out that the person who
did more than anyone else to set this forum up - Joe Painter - has just been
appointed as the next editor of Area. It is by no means clear to me that
people that Steve describes as 'Empire die-hards and spooks' are numerically
- or vocally - more important than members of the CGF. Without getting into
people's heads, it is impossible to be sure, but I suspect that the majority
of people who voted against cutting links voted according to their own
consciences and I think we have to respect that.
For me, then, it follows that a wave of resignations would be a massive
mistake and, given the relatively autonomous nature of RHED, the only people
to suffer from non-cooperation with research and study groups, journals and
conferences would be academics. That sounds like a better case of cutting
off a nose than I could possibly imagine. I also remain deeply worried about
the effect of opt-outs on younger researchers and would be interested to see
a rebuttal to the points I made earlier on this.
As for Shell, a vote to cut links would have made a high-profile statement
which would, undoubtedly, received considerable coverage in the media and
embarrassed the company. Whether they can really use the result to
consolidate their claims about having done no wrong in Ogoni is another
matter altogether.
For the future, my own view is that we need now to make the merged society
work. This will mean compromises and frustrations, reversals as well as
progress, but I don't see any realistic alternative which doesn't exclude
people. The suggestion by Andy Charlesworth that we become a virtual State
of the Union has exactly the same drawback that the Vancouver conference has:
it is too expensive for too many people. I'm also unconvinced by the GA as
an alternative home for academics - it too has a very different ethos and set
of priorities (although it might be that bringing the GA into the RGS would
kill many birds with another stone). At a time when academic geography is
subject to a range of pressures (including underfunding of universities and
the removal of geography from the core curriculum for GCSEs), we need to
develop our voice and work out what our collective interests are. The
advantage that the RGS should bring us is a voice into political corridors -
but this can only be done by engaging with people within the organisation.
Adam Tickell
School of Geography
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL
[log in to unmask]
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: [log in to unmask] (S.J.Pile (Steve Pile))
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Resent-from: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to: [log in to unmask] (S.J.Pile (Steve Pile))
To: [log in to unmask] (Critical Geography Forum)
Date: 96-12-03 07:38:02 EST
You will have read Michael Woods' message about the result. The motion to
boot
out Shell was defeated, as most will have expected. The question for many
will
be what should be done next.
Personally, I was intending to resign. I was not particularly taken with the
idea of changing the RGS.. on the other hand, it is clear from the vote that
there is a sizeable minority within the RGS as a whole for (er...) more
radical
action (especially, I guess, on issues around sustainable development). And,
I
believe, there are many people in the RGS who would not appreciate mass
resignations because they would like us to shake up the RGS (as one person
put
is at the SGM).
It was clear at the Shell vote SGM that the RGS is populated by Empire
die-hards
and spooks, but on the other hand there is a much broader constituency for
the
kinds of things we have been saying than I dared suspect.
That having been said, I don't think I can stomach staying in. It would
probably
be a good idea to collect the names of those resigning and do it as a
group...
if that's what people want to do.
Another way forward is to use the developing ethical guidelines as a lever on
Shell... the guidelines might well enable us to put pressure on the RGS's
corporate sponsorship policy across the board... if we can get evidence that
the
sponsor's have failed to meet the ethical standards set (the standards
involve
treatment of the environment, human rights and animal welfare), there will be
opportunities to put pressure on more than Shell.
The problem with doing much else is that the vote was democratic -- which
seems
to leave people with a 'stay or go' option. A less democratic option might be
to
down tools: refuse to sit on committees (including/especially the study
groups);
refuse to referee or submit articles to Transactions/Area; refuse to go to
RGS/IBG 98 -- instead, use THIS forum to organise conference activities, day
conferences, etc., use other journals...
A final thought: Shell corporate sponsorship of the RGS gives them a kind of
legitimacy; the vote yesterday will be spun to consolidate Shell's claims
about
having done no wrong in Ogoni... I do not want to be part of something that
gives Shell legitimacy.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|