Tracey raises some important concerns.  I guess from the tone and from
others, there is a realisation that leaving altogether en masse may be
either impractical, require a great deal of energy and work to create
something different, and may also be to some extent a cop-out of some
kind of democratic system.

Whilst my geographical experience is extremely limited, I do see a number
of parallels with another body I am involved with.  Within this particular
body there are many voices, some of which are opposed to each other.  Whilst
within the organisation these debates are constant and sometimes fierce, they
do very slowly lead to compromises and sometimes even quite radical change.
This is accepted as part of the political processes which shape this particular
grouping.

However, what is of some concern to the minority/more liberal/more radical
voices within the movement is the overall image of the grouping to the
outside.  Where there is one `head' of the movement who is referred to by
others as the authoratative voice to speak on behalf of that movement.  In
these instances, the dominant, conservative voice of the organisation takes
precedence, much to the frustration of the other voices who do not hold to 
the statements being issued on their behalf.

To move away from this abstract description, perhaps what is at issue in
the RGS/IBG is not the fact that we may hold different opinions to a hard-
core RGS majority.  I think most of us accept that if we wish to bring change
to what is now the only major British organisation for British Geographers
(aside from the GA which has been mentioned, but has a different function)then
we have to be in continuous dialogue with other facets of the organisation.
However, there is concern about the corporate image of the RGS/IBG which may
present itself in ways which we are not proud to be affiliated with.
I wonder, in terms of the future of the organisation, whether we would get
somewhere faster by pressing for the whole organisation to gradually reform
in our preferred directions, or whether there could be possibilities to alter
the image and structure of the organisation so that it is willing and happy to
present itself as a loose bonding of a multitude of voices in the British
geographical world, rather than a rigid, single-faced structure?

I'm not sure how this might be enacted, but it seems to me that the starting
point is to make absolutely certain that all the different voices are adequately
represented in executives, committees, boards etc. in sufficient mass to ensure
that they are heard.  To do this, there is no option but to remain within the
RGS/IBG, with people, like Tracey on the RHED, taking up positions.  Perhaps we
also need to get more public relations aware to ensure that it is not always
the monolithic singular RGS/IBG voice that is heard in the world beyond 
Kensington Gore.  Joe Painter et als huge efforts regarding the Shell issue 
was a prime example of this.

It is going to be hard work but not, I suspect, as hard as pulling out and
trying to do it all from scratch.

Rachel Gurevitz


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%