Both of these fields (in the Anglo-American traditions at least) are far more closed to new theories and methodologies than geography has been, which is geography's great strength in relation to these others. This is not to denigrate the work in soc./poli.sci., but it is to say that their concern with disciplinarity and "rigor" has resisted critical theory in ways that geography seems more open to questioning. (Of course, geography is not somehow less rigorous, it is just more promiscuous in letting sub-communities define this differently.)

A few other thoughts:

The structural forces of publish or perish that Oliver mentions are perhaps instrumental to this over-consumption of theoretical trends.

But I want to pose a question about "parroting," as if the boom in references to, for example, Agamben in recent years is in some way reducible to mimesis. First, the anxiety around parroting seems to rely on a problematic theory/practice divide (to echo Oliver again) that gets reduced to "applying theory to X." In fact, aren't engagements with Agamben in the social sciences an attempt to bridge this divide - even if they fail? Speaking as an outsider, one of the things that has impressed me most about geography has been the complicated ways theory/practice, space/politics, etc are made to speak to one another. Second, if we understand scientific practice through Kuhn, isn't "parroting" an integral part of "normal science"? So I wonder about the discursive effects of reducing theoretical geographies to mimesis, and the apparently negative connotation being advanced by those "tired" of Deleuze and friends.

joshua j. kurz
PhD Candidate, Comparative Studies
The Ohio State University

451 Hagerty Hall

1775 College Rd.
Columbus, OH 43210

no trees were harmed in the sending of this email, but trillions of electrons were severely inconvenienced...

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Nicholls, Walter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Oliver,

You mention some interesting factors that may encourage fast conceptual and theoretical turnover. However, you suggest that this rapid turnover is found throughout the social sciences. It seems to me that the rapid turnover is unique to human geography. Sociology and political science don’t seem to go through theorists as fast as geography (this is an empirical hunch, needs to be tested of course). If this is the case, what conditions are particular to geography that may explain for this?

Best

Walter nicholls

From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Oliver Belcher
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Deleuze and all that

I think both Sue and Allen are right in different ways. I frequently find myself both admiring the creativity with which geographers engage with Deleuze and other "French philosophers" (e.g., Sue's work, some variants of NRT), at the same time that I wish for more rigor with regard to the texts and the contexts in which they were produced; the lack of, obviously, often leads to "parroting" (the largely inappropriate and ubiquitous use of Agamben's "exception" would be the most blatant example in recent years...).

And the "silent" problem behind both Sue and Allen being right is, I think, tied to the publishing demands related to tenure (or for grad students, getting hired in the first place). One has to be "cutting edge" at the same time as one has to be constantly (over)producing. People are creative and thinking of neat ideas and relationships, but they are also having to churn them out in real-time (on top of committee and teaching duties), often leaving depth and rigor slighted, or not able to get to one's actual point until six published articles later. In other words, superficiality can reign in an academic structure that has disallowed scholars from being rigorous scholars. This was, as we know, Sebald's beef with the university reforms starting in the 1970s. Unfortunately, critical theorists can't get mega-government grants to buy time out of teaching to write a book as brilliant asthis, which who knows how many years such an undertaking takes.

So, in my opinion, if you want more rigor with regards to Deleuze, then demands for tenure within universities need to change. Moreover, the empirical demands need to change, getting rid of this whole notion of "applying" theory to X.

By the way, none of this applies to Grosz's work, who is a brilliant and rigorous scholar. Only the most superficial (i.e., never happened) read could ever suggest that she's "parroting."

Oliver!

--
Oliver Christian Belcher
PhD Student
Department of Geography
University of British Columbia
Twitter: http://twitter.com/deadlyparadigms
Blog: http://oliverbelcher.tumblr.com

"The hope that earthly horror does not possess the last word is, to be sure, a non-scientific wish." Max Horkheimer

"No one likes armed missionaries." Maximilien Robespierre