Hi

Yes, oh god and i have to be careful, although not a friday it`s after 
three glasses of wine and another threat of Catholic [sic] 
excommunicaiton rears its attractive, stylish head. 

But really there is a sense of deja vue [old fart] and `i told yu` so` 
about this. Maybe approaching other people-wherever they are- as humans 
rather than monsters [even yes if their name rhymes with `ate`] may 
help those WE are trying to work with [`to help` must be too 
condescending]. 

I WELCOME  the rediscovery of left-radical rethinking in geography, 
but the nuanced tone of this memo is intellectually streets ahead [I 
sense fascist humourless silencing here] of so much we`ve been reading 
here recently. Mad running dogs and all Thats simply not helping anyone 
but theirseleves who get crazed.

Let`s get in there, critically think capitalism; regenerate acadecmics 
working WITH people `on the streets` rather than reclaiming them from 
them [sorry, condescendingly for them]. Sorry, it`s hard to be useful 
and easy to `sound off`. As I note I am doing that, I will retreat. 
But humour remains an important subjective human trait that scotches 
anyone sad enough to reproduce sky-high digital Leonardos and Monets on 
their wall. John Lennon said `the best in things in life are free`. 
Shit it doesnt help you if youre starving but the need is to enable, to 
participate, to work with, to develop rapport, to get hands dirty and 
both feet in, but also the need for proportion.  

Lets work on a mix of values, up front, tactics, hard-negotiation and a 
spice of communicated anger. This does NOT mean a Blair mealy mouthed 
way but critical encounter, telling them what we think and saying yes 
we`ll work with you to give you your street cred but you need to 
acknowledge a lot.

Corporations will need to grow up. With networks around academics can 
be useful reources and participants, but only on that level, not as 
self-styled experts, repeating the oft hypocrisy of the other side. 

ENJOY whatever the season is, 

David




On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:14:01 -0500 (EST) Rhys Evans <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Regarding the Feed the World website, i encountered it about four 
> months ago.  I personally went through a mini version of this debate 
> before finally deciding to 'push the button' and thus indicate my 
> support for the concept, even if i have reservations.
> 
> I want to second Liisa Cormode's assertion.  There is a lot more to 
> this particular issue than can be encompassed in a quick negative 
> response.
> 
> There is a very interesting literature on cooperation between 
> environmental NGOs (Greenpeace, WWF, etc) and large corporations -- and 
> the case studies show that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. 
> And sometimes the NGO gets co-opted, as was the experience with the 
> Greenpeace/MacDonalds programme in the US.  David Murphy at the New 
> Academy of Business has a book out on this topic.  
> 
> Closely related to his work is work in the Social Policy field by Sue 
> Barratt on corporate philanthropy, which, among other things, examines 
> business's attempts to 'rationalise' or quantify benefit in corporate 
> good citizenship programmes.  As i recall, the verdict is that this 
> can't be done and some of the most successful programmes happened to 
> have corporate sponsors who reject financial benefit as a reason for 
> corporate good citizenship but who nevertheless feel an almost moral 
> obligation to 'give something back' to communities, or to help 'build 
> healthy communities'.  ---Yes, these literatures talk in these terms.
> 
> So that brings up the question of how can large capitalist 
> profit-making enterprises talk of 'morals' or even 'community'?  After 
> all, by the foundational constitution of their identities as capitalist 
> corporations, morals are subsumed by profit.  They are fundamentally 
> unable to operate in other than strict profit-taking mode, otherwise 
> they will fail against other more rapacious competitors.  
> And yet some of them do.  {Bye the way, there is a far larger 
> percentage of businesses with corporate philosophy programmes, and 
> individual firms give much more, in American than in Britain -- 
> interesting to think on this....}  
> 
> In the same way, how can we, employed by Universities, driving cars, 
> willingly borrowing capital to buy houses from big banks; how can we 
> talk of morals?  Are we not as immured in the system as the 
> corporations, even those of us who actively oppose the system?  None of 
> us get out of here clean, in those terms.
> 
> Yet of course, we can and do think in terms other than rationalities of 
> profit.  We exist in a complex, contradictory, several universe and 
> our responses are also complex, contradictory and several.  And so, in 
> the end, i personally decided that a bowl of rice is a bowl of rice and 
> that although i found the process distasteful, i would overcome my 
> aesthetic objections and push the button.   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other interesting questions arise when you look at the list of 
> corporate sponsors.  I didn't recognise any of them.  By this, i take 
> it that they are not large multi-national corp'ns.  What does this 
> represent, then?  Interestingly, the sponsorship page does try and 
> define the benefit to a sponsor, check out their formula....
> 
> i wondered when this debate would appear on the forum.  At the risk of 
> over egging the cake, 'It's Good To Talk'.
> 
> cheers
> 
> rhys
> 
> 
> ----------------------
> Rhys Evans
> Arkelton Centre For Rural Development Research
> University of Aberdeen
> Old Aberdeen, UK AB24 3DS
> 
> 
> 

----------------------
David Crouch
Anglia Polytechnic University
[log in to unmask]



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