Dear All
When Linda McDowell took over the editorship of Antipode in the Uk, I was
very pleased to see her editorial letter, which explicitly encouraged
submission of articles across a breadth of radical scholarship. Perhaps as
one of the foremost feminist scholars in the discipline, this enthusiasm on
her part should remind of at least one reason why a radical geography
prioritising class is not always going to be helpful. And of course, there
are many other reasons to build on and move beyond the class-reductionism of
some early Marxism in Geography.
I would ask that perhaps once again we are in danger of being a bit rude and
exclusionary to fellow list members. We may disagree theoretically or
politically - but there may well be good reasons for that. Feminist politics
might be one very good reason not to choose to be class-reductionist.
Similarly many of us have developed our intellectual and political
commitments in a wide range of political contexts, which have made us think
very hard about the value of some forms of class-based political analysis.
Personally, I grappled, with the help of David Harvey's work, to understand
urban movements which were of course shaped by class divisions and by
capital accumulation, but which were also as much to do with anti-state
politics and with diverse community experiences. I can't say that I like
being asked to place myself in a position which is receiving such
denigration as is being expressed on the CGF just now, especially not when
many of my intellectual judgements grow out of a strong commitment to a
certain very challenging politics.
I know that people are leaving the list because of the nature of the
accusations, exchanges and assumptions which are dominating it at the
moment. I have asked before that we might be more respectful of one
another's differences as we debate things. I doubt I can do that again
without seeming very boring - and I didn't like very much the responses it
elicited last time round. To be very (and deliberately) provocative: Is it
perhaps time to abandon the CGF? But perhaps that's happened already....
Jenny Robinson
?----Original Message-----
From: Raju Das [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 November 1999 12:55
To: Jane Wills
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Radical Pol. Economy, Class and Antipode: We are
ALL critica
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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|