The result of the vote on Shell has inevitably re-opened the debate on what
critical geographers should do next. I think that there are only two
'active' responses to the vote:
The first would be to completely withdraw from the RGS-IBG, as Steve Pile
suggested - and which as Steve described would mean not just resigning
membership but withdrawing from study groups, conferences, refereeing for
journals etc. Personally I do not believe that this is practical, desirable
or even achievable at this time.
Which leaves only one other option:
Critical geographers who are currently members of the RGS-IBG should remain
inside the Society, whilst also joining with critical geographers outside
the Society to establish an independent critical geography organisation.
There are a number of reasons for staying in the RGS-IBG:
* Until a critical geography organisation is in a position to organise
realistic alternatives to the RGS-IBG conference, journals, study groups etc
we are all going to continue participating in activities organised by or on
behalf of the RGS-IBG, and therefore effected by what the RGS does. If we
breakaway we will lose any influence, and - to a silly extreme example -
there would be nothing to stop IBG conference sessions held against a
backcloth embalzoned with the Shell logo.
* Any breakaway would strengthen the position of the 'old guard' within the
RGS-IBG because it would allow them to suggest that we were just playing
politics, we were not really interested in the future of the Society, we
were looking for an excuse to leave etc. - and could be used to seriously
undermine the proposed ethical policy on corporate sponsorship.
* The size of the 'yes' vote proves that there is a sizeable minority within
the RGS-IBG who are at least sympathetic to our views. This presents us with
an opportunity which should not be squandered. We should remain within the
RGS-IBG and build bridges to these people, both in order to increase
representation for our views within the Society, and to try to forge a
Critical Geography that extends beyond academia.
At the same time, even vaguely 'critical' voices are outnumbered 3 to 1 in
the RGS-IBG. It is clear that we are not going to change the culture of the
Society overnight, if ever, and it is clear that there are lots of things
which we might want an organisation representing us as critical geographers
to do which the RGS-IBG is not going to do.
I therefore think that it is important that we also establish an independent
Critical Geography organisation which might:
* act as a contact point for critical geographers both within and
outside the RGS-IBG.
* facilitate discussion of critical geography
* adopt a more pro-active political stance than the RGS-IBG
* eventually evolve into a possible alternative to the RGS-IBG,
organising conferences, publishing a journal, supporting
speciality groups etc.
I think that this is a seperate issue to the Vancouver conference. Vancouver
will provide the opportunity to build networks with critical geographers
outside Britain, but I believe that the development of a Critical Geography
organisation needs to be bottom-up, not top-down. I think it would therefore
be wrong to leave it to those who are fortunate enough to be able to get to
Vancouver. We need to act locally first, and Exeter would seem to be the
place to start. We've spent two years talking about what to do, and earlier
this year we even drew up a series of ideas about what a Critical Geography
organisation should do and what it should look like, I propose that this
year we start putting those ideas into practice.
**********************************
Michael Woods
Institute of Earth Studies
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DB.
Tel: 01970 622589
Fax: 01970 622659
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
**********************************
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|