Graham, Chris, Critical Geography,

GRAHAM SIMON GARDNER wrote:
> 
> I whole heartedly agree with just about all the sentiments expressed below.
>  Anyone else got any thoughts about the uses and abuses of theory?

Come on Graham, don't be shy, let's hear yours first !
 
CHRIS KEYLOCK wrote:
> >
> >The question is this:
> >Why does critical geography need an 'in your face'  critical social
> >theory?

Perhaps to make sure that we are engaging with as many potentially
important
issues as possible.  Without a theoretical base we are relying too much
on the 
instincts and intuition of the critical geographer which, while having
an 
important part to play in any research project, is unlikely to prove
sufficient
(for the evidence here just think whether or not we would be
working/studying
in geography departments at all if this instinct/intuition were
infallible). 

> >It seems to me that individuals writing on topics that might broadly be
> >conceived as critical geography in refereed journals or in PhD theses must
> >cite every other line of their work with Harvey, Habermas and bel hooks
> >for their work to be deemed acceptable to the community at large.

Citation is an immensely important means of legitimisation.  It ensures
that
we are not, always, talking at cross-purposes and keeps the debate
within
particular channels. We do not feel, and most likely are not, empowered
to 
simply write whatever it is that we think about a particular situation
without
making reference to other authors.  By citing these authors we come to
assume 
some portion of the power that their analyses carry and, yes,
unfortunately, the 
debate is constrained (but let's not forget also enabled) by the
particular 
literature that is currently in vogue - and, hell, who wants to be
unfashionable ?   

You can't get style from a book - You've either got it or you 'int !

> >If a scholarly debate results from the publication of a study that perhaps
> >investigates issues of gender, ethnicity or some similar theme in a
> >particular location, the
> >criticism that often  results seems to me to focus on the author's
> >conception and definition of such terms rather than the data
> >presented, quite often stating
> >that the original author was mistaken and used an inadequate definition.

Are we perhaps idealistically hoping that our research has some kind of
purpose
beyond the perpetuation of geography as an academic discipline ?
Probably, and why
not ? Another little part of the game (rule #7 Geographers must be
convinced not 
that their work is interesting but that it is useful to humankind). No
really,
though, too much navel gazing can be a bad thing but it is fun and (tell
me
if I am wrong) really quite glamorous.

> >If this was really the case would the paper have been published in a good
> >journal? 

Do bad papers normally appear in good journals ?

> >Thus, the definitions of terms used with
> >respect to particular case-studies has to be open and as such isn't a
> >legitimate target for the slagging off type of criticism that one sees now
> >and again. Therefore, I am not sure to what extent theory helps
> >definitions, which seem to be in a state of flux anyway.

While fieldwork and the 'results' of such are very personal, I am not
sure
that the argument that 'I was there and therefore I know' is especially
useful.  OK, so we accept to some extent that this particular person
*was* 
there and observed whatever but...do we believe this person to be a
reasonable, well-read, informed, intuitive person ? As soon as something
is written down, meaning is to some extent fixed (probably in a way we 
might argue is neither possible nor desirable) and this is what I feel
is being challenged in such 'attacks' on other people's definitions.
And, 
again this is part of the game of academia...is it one of the best bits
? 

> >The interpretation you place on a theory will be the one that helps
> >you explain the events you observe when you do your fieldwork. But given
> >the way papers are written it often seems that people come back knowing
> >how they want to explain the events they have seen but then look in the
> >literature for a theory to couch it all in because this is what you are
> >meant to do. Wouldn't it be simpler for people to just write about the
> >things they see in a more open way, giving them greater freedom to put
> >their own opinions in, without every comment having to be justified with
> >reference to a grand-theorist (even if that grand-theorist is
> >oxymoronically anti-grand theory)?

Agreed.  Where though would such writing be published without a major
change
in the whole structure of academic geography and publishing ? Perhaps we
could 
all take up awful travel writing, or write for the Sunday broadsheets. I
think 
this kind of writing is useful and largely constitutes my own 'field
diary' 
which is perhaps *too* personal to be shared.  It is a shame though that
more
of this style of thought doesn't escape from such documents.   
Agree also with point re: the crushingly obvious grand-theoretical
nature
of all theory.  Must this always be the way...we could follow John
Shotter's
example and argue instead that our meta-narrative is in reality a 
meta-methodology but, perhaps, that is just playing around with words
(as usual, 
all in a day's work).

Sorry to just keep wibbling on and on...

> >Thus, while I willingly accept that theory is important for giving people
> >ideas and as such should be referenced. The theory seems to manifest
> >itself in different ways when different authors work on varying topics at
> >various places. The resulting terminology is also unique to individual
> >circumstance as discussed above. Thus, the theory or theories used become
> >divorced from the original author, metamorphose  and then become  attached
> >to the individual researcher. Thus, the use of references does
> >not accurately reflect the theory that the individual is using because it
> >has become their own personal version.

They ought to be legitimately referenced though.  To me it is a bit like
having to show your working in a maths question - no points unless you
can demonstrate how you know the answer.  We want to be able to
understand
how somebody arrived at a particular inclusion and no text is ever the
work
of only one author. 

> >I hope that the point I am trying to make is understandable here. Just as
> >a closing remark it seems to me that many people on this list would say
> >that Mike Davis' book City of Quartz was one of the better things they had
> >read over the last few years. 

Would it be a terrible faux-pas to admit I have never read this ? 

> >But this book makes very little reference to
> >social theory. Instead, the quality of the writing, the careful
> >observations and the overarching theoretical perspective are readily
> >apparent from the clear, crisp narrative rather than because they are
> >punctuated by loads of references. I think to demean this book as
> >non-academic because it doesn't contain the references is a meaningless
> >criticism because in practice it appears on alot of people's reading
> >lists. If the role of the critical geographer is to communicate the issues
> >they are engaged in, isn't this style of writing more appropriate?

Who, though, are we communicating too ? If the rest of the critical
geography community only then things can stay as they are probably. It 
depends on how real our desires to do anything else than have academic 
careers.  I myself look forward to one day, hopefully, publishing a few
papers in acadmic journals, having a few nice holidays, a bit of
teaching,
couple of books, sophistication, retirement...

Any more thoughts ?

and my point is.............................


**************************************************************
Dan Knox
Research Postgraduate
Department of Geography
Unversity of Durham
Durham
England
DH1 3LE

0191 374 2472

"You won't fool the Children of the Revolution".  Marc Bolan.
**************************************************************


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