Print

Print
Just a quick point of clarification/correction, and two broader points on this thread:

1) The American Academy of Religion did not cancel its 2014 annual meeting. That meeting was held in San Diego, with nearly 10,000 attendees. This year's AAR meeting will be in Atlanta, and at least 6 future conferences have been scheduled, with no cancellations announced.

2) The first broader point is that scholars gather together for a reason. If individuals don't want to do that, for whatever reason (feelings of guilt for burning fuel, feelings of guilt for extramarital opportunities, etc.), no one is forcing them to. The options of telecommuting into a conference could and should be expanded -- though, of course, that would turn conferences even more into the kinds of things most of us dislike about them, i.e., that they're just a way for academics to add a line to their CVs, not truly a way to communicate, engage, organize, etc.

3) The second broader point is that there are social and ecological costs to all the moving around that we do -- flying, driving, taking vacations in warm destinations, carrying out fieldwork in locales around the world, etc. -- and that a more localistic, home & place based, "small is beautiful" society may arguably be a more socially and ecologically sustainable one than our highly global and mobile society. That seems a very *geographical* argument to me, so it makes sense that geographers should be at the forefront of questioning traditions and habits and debating other options (as they have been). For instance: should we, as a society, move, commute, migrate, tour, and travel less? What kind of redesign of our communities and our geographic habits would that entail? How would it differentially affect social groups and classes? How would it affect our capacity to continue our work as scholars, as teachers, as activists? Would replacing fuel-based travel with telecommunication result in any real gains, or would it simply reproduce the same problems on other levels (new forms of pollution and waste, new resource conflicts, new forms of surveillance, secrecy, hoarding of wealth, etc.)? At what point might localism lead to a resurgence of the very parochialisms that our discipines were intended to counter?

Surely there's a conference theme in there somewhere. :-)

Best,
Adrian Ivakhiv



On 10/23/15, 7:50 AM, David Jansson wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> Thanks for the comments on the “flying less” petition. To be honest, I usually don’t like petitions, as they seem to be a very passive way to be “political,” so the question here is really what you do AFTER signing the petition. We can, for example, take up the issue with our universities and professional associations. My university, Uppsala, has a pretty good policy in writing (encouraging us first to explore alternatives to travel, and second to try to avoid flying), but I’m not sure it has had much practical effect (given the expectations regarding internationalization and conference participation we face). With regard to professional associations, my understanding is that (to take one example) the AAG has not been interested in discussing this at all.

At least one professional association has cancelled its yearly conference, in this case the 2014 meeting of the American Academy of Religion (see http://nyti.ms/1zwHEa2 for a New York Times article on the topic), though it seems that the Academy will resume holding the conference this year.

Perhaps the AAG meeting could happen every other year instead of yearly? That would be a small step (though I’m sure the AAG wouldn’t call it a “small” step), but at least a step in the right direction. There are meetings of the regional geography associations in the US (typically involving less air travel) that could be developed and promoted to an increasing degree. The Nordic Geographers Meeting is an example of a regional conference in Europe that’s more local but also very much appreciated by attendees (from my experience).

We could also join with others to push for better rail service - even in many parts of Europe, rail isn’t as good as it should be, and it’s often more expensive than flying. The tasks are many, some are small, some are enormous (what do we do about capitalism?). It’s about what we do individually AND collectively.

I was surprised by Christine’s critique about the supposed individualism of this effort, but others have already addressed that concisely and effectively. I also appreciated Allen’s comment about the disappointing nature of many conferences, which makes them even harder to justify. I also agree that we need to think critically about our own academic culture and the demands/expectations embedded in this culture that produce a “need” to fly. 

If the science is correct, it appears we’re facing a situation where the most decisive thing will be your (our) answer to the question: what are you (we) willing to sacrifice? I think we’ll be extremely lucky if our list of necessary sacrifices STOPS at flying less...

cheers,
dave

------------------------------
Dr. David Jansson
Associate Professor of Human Geography
Docent i kulturgegorafi
Department of Social and Economic Geography
Kulturgeografiska institutionen
Uppsala University
Box 513
75120 Uppsala, Sweden
tel: +46 18 471 25 18
mobile: +46 73 084 1967

Please cite all of my publications as often as you can.

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
Adrian J. Ivakhiv 
Professor of Environmental Studies/Environmental Thought & Culture 
Rubenstein School of Environment & Natural Resources 
University of Vermont, Burlington VT 05405 U.S.A. 
Tel 802.656.0180 Fax 802.656.8015 Email: [log in to unmask]   	
http://vermont.academia.edu/AdrianIvakhiv 
http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv
http://www.uvm.edu/~aivakhiv