Jane,
Thanks for your reply. I look forward to hearing what others will
have to say in the debate on Antipode. I'm afraid I don't have
anything more to say than I what I have already said (pl. see my
response to Jim Blaut as well).
You are saying 'we are not wanting to limit the journal too much'.
But then how much exactly can you limit it? I did not mean to be
impolite at all -- I am just wondering.
If it is true that Antipode is not radical enough, not _anti_ enough,
as I have said and people like Jim Blaut agree, there might be
two reasons.
1. Structural: Antipode cannnot be more radical than its catchment
area (a river would be muddier if its catchent area has loose soil,
other things constant). The so-called radical scholarship in
Geography itself is not radical enough.
2. 'Agencial': The editorship may be parly to blame: perhaps it has
not encouraged radical works to be submitted and accepted. The
editorship itself is not radical enough perhaps. * Perhaps
the editorial policy is not radical enough. But then I don't
know how the editorial policy is determined.
Raju
But one might say: what about Society and Space under the
editorship of Neil Smith, who is very radical in my view? Dick Walker
is, of course, much more radical than many of the so-called radical
authors who have published their papers in Antipode.
Raju J Das
Department of Geography
University of Dundee
Dundee DD1 4HN
United Kingdom
Phone 01382 348073 work
01382 737097 home
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|