Well, since someone has asked about the Vancouver conference, perhaps I could
make a first effort at a "report", which I hope others who were there can
contribute to / supplement / trash.
As far as I'm aware, there were about 300 delegates from about 30 different
countries at the conference. All of which was very refreshing for me, since
there were only a dozen or so Brits. The conference certainly provided a
wonderful atmosphere in which to meet people and to talk about ideas, politics
and the too-clean beauty of Vancouver and its surrounds. One of the things that
particularly struck me was that debate at the conference was tempered with
respect for other people's positions as well as a desire to listen to others.
On the other hand, this did leave me with a sense that more ought to be at stake
in the knowledges we produce.
And I think this relates to Christopher Ray's point that we don't talk about
what "critical" means in this -- and most other -- forums. Perhaps it is the
legacy of Thatcher in Britain, but our sense of ourselves as contributing into
politics in wider spheres seems to have become buried under the proliferation of
geographers doing "cultural studies". Once the cultural turn may have been a way
to embark on a new style cultural politics that enhanced already exisiting
critical approaches in geography, but now we've done the turn for ten years, we
seem to be treading water: a lot of froth, but I'd like to know where we (I know
"we" is a contested word) going, politically, intellectually.
Certainly this forum is a place to discuss what "critical" means... and I don't
suppose making this a general geography discussion list would produce any better
debates about what "human" or "geography" means, either.
Perhaps, before we feel comfortable talking openly about such things, people
need to gather in smaller groups face-to-face. To this end, we should probably
be thinking about having a day meeting somewhere, perhaps with the delibrate aim
of taliing about "critical-geography". Any ideas?
At least, there seemed to be a strong determination in Vancouver to continue the
project. People were keen to try another format for the conference, perhaps
using dedicated themes and avoiding paper-giving sessions; people were also keen
to ensure that a venue was found that was outside of the Anglo-speaking world --
because it was thought that this would lend a different presepctive and
understanding to the possibilities of critical and political debate in
geography.
I hope others will give their impressions of Vancouver... and/or make
suggestions about the kinds of things we should be doing as critical
geographers.
Steve
PS For those who strayed from the path, the MARS was excellent...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|