 |
 |
In response to some recent comments: I am a little suprised by some recent comments. I have not seen anywhere, any already decided definition of critical geography, neither have I seen any attempt to exclude some or form cliques...Joe Painter's manifesto/constitution ideas seem to me to be very sensible, non-dogmatic and open to a vast range of critical viewpoints. I thought that part of the point of the CGF was to discuss (hopefully in a reasonably amiable manner) the meanings of critical geography. All the suggestions so far have done their best to not limit membership, discussion or diversity..so what are the bases of these points of view being expressed? People offering to be contacts around the world seems eminently sensible...if nobody actually does anything or suggest anything concrete then what happens? We have a nice internet discussion about all manner of things which is fine but ultimately depressing..things can be discussed to death. I would argue that we (and I for one are not and never have been anything to do with the 60s labout party) need a practical framework and body within which these discussions continue...the problem is that for it to strategically "happen" it need to extend beyond the internet and to have some legal status. As many people have expressed a need for home beyond the RGS (a second home for some) such a home needs to exist - with walls and a roof and all that stuff...It does not limit or provide closure to discussion - it is just a strategic starting point for a world community of geographers who need a base. Put frankly...it is easy to see a point a year or two years from now when we are still defining critical geography, bemoaning the endless difficulties with the RGS, and nothing else ha changed...just endless talk. At some point before then I imagine most of us will have turned off and got on with our lives... Tim Cresswell %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%