I was struck that this posting generated no replies on the Crit-Geog-Forum
- not one. Yet, many papers presented at the IBG meetings were speaking to
a far broader audience than our own subdiscipline, so it seems that work
is being done.
What gives?
--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 19:30:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: Simon Batterbury <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Environmentalism and relevance
Sender: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Bob Nunn posted this on an excellent new mail list devoted to ecological
anthropology. Within one week of starting up, this list has got
350 members already, and the debate is lively.
Bob sums up my view - substitute 'human geography' for 'anthropology' and
there we have it in a nutshell. Or at least, that's what I'm prepared to
endorse at this stage in the interests of sparking debate (borrowing the
technique of deliberate provocation from colleague Steve Woolgar!) -
theory-practice dicotomies are not that simple, theory can inform action,
and the two disciplines are not cut from quite the same cloth.
But there are awful similarities, don't you think? How many of you once
fancied changing the world or would still like to, but are now spending
more time writing papers instead?
I've been thinking on this subject for a while, so I would appreciate
public or private views.
*Happy Thanksgiving*, by the way.
--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:50:42 PST
From: Bob Nunn <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: defining environment
Sender: Eanth-L <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Chuck Willer wrote:
>
>As a professional environmental activist in the Northwest U.S.,
>I find the discussion of the meaning of "environment" more than a
>little bewildering. Perhaps I fail to appreciate the requirements
>of anthropological work. The environmental community has no doubt
>or confusion about what's "environmental."
I think that you've identified a key shortcoming to anthropology's
ability to
ameliorate environmental and social problems: "the requirements of
anthropological work." Status within the discipline is achieved for the
most
part by where you publish and how much theory you generate vs. how much
real change you contribute to. Kottak addresses this in his essay on
the
"New Anthropology," yet most academic anthros I know dismiss his paper
as "weak," in large part because it threatens their control of the
discourse.
Kottak suggests that if anthropologists don't begin to demand a seat at
the policy
table wherein we can at least attempt to convert our theory into praxis,
then
we will provide no real tangible good to society, and will whither and
die as
disciplines that produce more than discourse and theory take center
stage.
Personally, I couldn't agree more. We've been gathering data for 150
years now,
isn't it about time we started doing something with it? We remain so
wedded to our fantasy
of being "objective scientists," that most anthros cringe at the thought
of having to
take a stand on something or speak out about an injustice. Currently,
there is no greater
sin than for an anthropologist (or an anthro grad student for that
matter) to be labelled
an "activist."
Anthropology is perhaps better poised than any other discipline to
effect meaningful change
(via policy and/or education) relative to human-caused global
environmental/ecological problems.
How ironic then that a discipline that who's very foundation is rooted
in asking the tough questions
that society does not want to answer (i.e. what is race? what is
cultural relativism, what/who
controls the power, how are these hierarchies perpetuated, etc.) would
itself create and perpetuate a
comodification of knowledge wherein the "movers and shakers" are
theorists, and the academic "wannabees"
are relegated to activist status. Time and time again I have seen grad
students come into anth grad programs
with every intention of working outside of academia to effect real
change, only to be beaten into submission
and begin to question their academic "worthiness"simply because they
want to pursue an applied career.
While there are exceptions, they are few and far between.
Anti-environmentalists will often claim that environmentalists love to
create ecological problems
so that they can have a job. Most environmentalists I know take extreme
cuts in pay (if they are paid at all)
in order to apply their academic training to real life solutions--and
thus most if not all of them would relish
the day when there were no more environmental problems and they could
return to their careers. Not so
in academia as theorists have no world to return to.
Bob Nunn
--- End Forwarded Message ---
------------------------------
Dr Simon Batterbury
Dept. of Geography & Earth Sciences
Brunel University
Uxbridge Middx. UB8 3PH, UK
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/depts/geo
tel +1895 274000 fax +1895 203217
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|