 |
 |
Dear all, Although I can't speak for other members of the group, I suppose I should respond to some of the critiques raised by Paul Treanor regarding the International Critical Geography Group (ICGG) and what is 'wrong' with it: - There is no doubt that, like all political organizations, the ICGG has its own 'ideology', yet the term may be too strong for the loose collection of academics and activists who got together in Vancouver three years ago to connect their work outside of the established conference circuit (the 2nd gathering will take place next August in Taegu). Members of the group and steering committee have kept in touch over email and through a couple of meetings in different locations but I am afraid these few encounters have not yielded the coherence and clearly defined party line Paul seems to assign the ICGG (not that this is a goal anyway). I have not been aware of any particular 'inability to distance [ourselves] from human rights' simply because we haven't yet had a collective debate about the question - and if we did, various positions would certainly emerge. The neoliberalism that makes its way into the discourse of human rights is indeed an important issue and certainly a good place to start discussion in Taegu. My sense is that most ICGG members would welcome such a discussion. - It's hard not to take issue with the way Paul ascribes a single worldview to all members of the group. I won't rehearse the same arguments around identity, experience, location... but I will mention that the 'culturally definite origin' of the steering committee is less straightforward than Paul seems to assume. As a French speaker in Canada (Quebecoise), much of my own academic and critical work in the English-language academy is developed in French and could never be articulated without that other perspective. I suspect this is true of many other ICGG members. The necessity of adopting a hegemonic language is unfortunate, granted it may even limit the frame of our thinking. But to equate that with a 'lack of openness' or an 'ideological-block' is a big jump. - Finally, what's tricky in this discussion is that, in trying to nuance the black and white reading Paul seems to make of the ICGG statement of purpose, I may have presented the group to be lacking coherence or a clear direction. But I choose that over any clearly stated 'ideology of critical geography.' The reality of geographical distance between the various members, as well as the multiple contexts they find themselves in, has a lot to do with the fragmented, uneven connections we make. Some will be able to travel to Taegu and work on finding productive ways of addressing that. What counts as 'successful' political organizing these days? And where is a good place to start? Au plaisir, Caroline >The International Critical Geography Group (ICGG) describes itself as... > >> geographers and non-geographers committed to developing the theory and >>practice >> necessary for combating social exploitation and oppression. > >Like all organisations dealing with highly politicised issues of global >geography, it has its own ideology. That ideology does not correspond with the >emotional tone of the self-description. The reality is that some people >involved with the ICGG promote new forms of oppression, whatever the name they >give to it. > >The ideology appears in the statement of purpose >http://econgeog.misc.hit-u.ac.jp/icgg/Statement_ICGG.html > >for instance in this self-definition.. > >> We are CRITICAL because in opposing existing systems that defy human >>rights, we >> join with existing social movements outside the academy that are aimed >>at social >> change. > >Human rights are in themselves a typical ideology of oppression, used to >justify superpower military intervention, and the recolonisation of Asia and >Africa. The inability of the ICGG to distance itself from human rights, shows >the degree of its identification with "western" values, the values of the >liberal tradition. A person who refuses to even consider that human rights >might be evil, can not themselves be considered "critical". > >At present, there is a general shift in western foreign policy thinking, >towards intervention, unilateralism, and unipolarism. To a large extent that >is the result of the NGO lobbies which have acquired so much power in the last >20 years. It is this NGO cartel and its client 'civil society' in eastern >Europe, which the ICGG calls "social movements". There are no longer any >"social movements" in the traditional sense: in fact I can not think of any >non-NGO "movement" in Europe with more than a few hundred members. I am not >advocating 1960's nostalgia, but a recognition, that critical geographers >often align themselves with oppressive organisations, advocating the >imposition of liberal values on the world. > >> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/human.rights.html >> Why human rights are wrong > >I think there is no mystery about the general ideology of critical geography. >It accepts the fundamental values of liberal democracy - human rights, civil >rights, the separation of powers, democracy. It accepts liberal historicism - >in which the world is believed to be advancing from atrocity to >liberal-democracy. I think no critical geographer would say - as I do - that >it was wrong for US troops to liberate Nazi concentration camps and introduce >a free market economy. I think that every critical geographer, given a >non-avoidable choice between the free market and the Holocaust, would choose >the free market. Although these examples tend to irritate people, they are >useful for revealing differences in value orientation (which is why they are >used in ethics courses). > >So although there are internal differences, it is possible to speak of a >single 'critical-geography' world view, approach , and ideology. The >academic/theoretical culture of critical geography also has a culturally >definite origin - in the English-language academic world, and especially the >US and the UK. Two-thirds of the ICGG steering committee come from the >Anglophone academic world. (However this is certainly an improvement on the >100% anglophone Critical-Geography tradition in the UK)... > >Swapna Banerjee-Guha (University of Bombay, India) >Lawrence Berg (Massey University, New Zealand) >Luisa Bialasiewitcz (University of Colorado, USA) >Nick Blomley (Simon Fraser University, Canada) >Caroline Desbiens (University of British Columbia, Canada) >Teresa Christine Dirsuweit (University of Witwatersrand, South Africa) >Joe M. Painter (Durham University, UK) >Steve J. Pile (Open University, UK) >Beverley Pitman (Simon Fraser University, Canada) >Geraldine Pratt (University of British Columbia, Canada) >Sue Ruddick (University of Toronto, Canada) >Neil Smith (Rutgers University, USA) > >Africa, east Europe and the post-Soviet states are unrepresented by the >rest.... > >Byung-Doo Choi (Taegu University, the Republic of Korea) >Claudio Minca (Universita Venezia, Italy) >Fujio Mizuoka (Hitotsubashi University, Japan) >Kirsten Simonsen (Roskilde University, Denmark) >Blanca Rebeca Ramirez Velazquez (Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Mexico) > >However, it is the lack of openness (rather than geographic location or >language hegemony), which contributes to the 'ideological-block' character of >critical geography. > > >--- >Paul Treanor >http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/nato.html >+----------------------------------------------------------+ >An E-mail transmitted to you by the ICGG Mailing List: >[log in to unmask] > >Visit ICGG Homepage http://econgeog.misc.hit-u.ac.jp/icgg/ >for information on the ICGG Conference 2000 in Taegu, Korea! ____________________________________ Caroline Desbiens PhD Candidate, Geography University of British Columbia Room 217 - 1984 West Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z2 Tel: (604) 605-0672 Fax: (604) 822-5945 Email: [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%