Mike Crang wrote:
>don't know how the journal will turn out - will depend in part on what
>people send. But it seems a bit silly to throw bricks a la Treanor at
>this stage
>
I think the tone of my little 'criticism' was not so serious as to merit
being described as a 'brick'!!
I was simply noting that there is still, despite the huge increase and
sophistication of ecological thinking in recent years, a tendency for
social scientists to regard it with far more suspicion than other radical
tendencies, and to obscure the common ground that exists between them. What
I was trying to point out that the one major NSM tendency that your
otherwise quite exhaustive lists of what things you would be covering was
anything to do with the environment.
Next, I was just asking 'why'? They were questions, not statements...
The other statement Mike made, that <there is already a journal about
environment, culture and meaning (Ecumene)> is besides the (academic rather
than commercial) point really. I just find it hard to undestand how a
Journal claiming to be covering the entirety of social and cultural
geography could miss out something so fundamental.
I am NOT suggesting any kind of conspiracy (it seems there is enough
conspiracy theory around SCG and its wider place from inside the
sub-discipline anyway, judging by recent debates!), merely trying, as
someone who is increasingly being drawn into social and cultural geography,
to understand how people define what gets included and what doesn't. As
someone who starts from a position outside formal academia I find the
boundries drawn constantly baffling, irrational and limiting to wider
understanding.
Hope that helps,
David.
David Wood
PhD Student ('The Rural Peace Dividend')
Department of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
Tel: 0191 222 5305
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|