 |
 |
In response to yet another example of the differences between the politics, aspirations and culture of much of the 'old' RGS and many members of the IBG, Pyrs Gruffudd wrote last week that he is considering again the option of leaving the RGS. Although this strategy has been pursued by quite a few readers of the Critical Geography Forum - and one which I actively considered over the RTZ incident a couple of years ago - I think that the implications of this action need to be fully thought through. When any organisations merge, there are always major cultural clashes and it was inevitable that politicised academics would find the highly establishment ethos of the ROYAL geographical society to be alien (and vice versa). However, since the merger took effect, the influence of the 'new' fellows has led to changes in the RGS which would have been unthinkable before. While we will probably lose the Shell vote, that it is taking place at all is symbolically importnat in such an establishment organisation and the new ethics policy of the RGS is also significant. I'd stop far short of saying that the RGS will become the type of organisation I'd always be happy being a part of, but the nature of civil society is surely that we are all contributors to/ members of institutions we only partially like. (I don't like paying taxes for nuclear weapons but don't believe in opting out of specific taxes because of the dangers of the right adopting similar strategies. I hate the car culture but drive a car. I'm a member of USS which invests my pension fund in 'ethically challenged' companies ...) In that context, we should work to make organisations better (and I know that this is the classic call of the bourgeois reformist). The more 'critical' voices that stay in the RGS, the more likely the RGS is to respond to calls for change. I'm also concerned that there are real losses for others from an eviscerated RGS. People with established careers and reputations may not notice it, but the losers from a dwindling critical academic presence in the RGS would seem to me to be younger researchers and postgraduates who benefit enormously from meeting people at conference, research group meetings and other informal 'do's organised via the RGS. Of course, the annual conference will continue, but its rationale begins to disappear if research groupings (out of the RGS) organise their meetings at other times and the most research active don't bother to attend. The outcome will be that postgraduates suffer and we all increasingly talk to people whose views are closer and closer to our own - which is hardly very critical. The ridiculous outcome could be that the only time generic human geographers from UK universities come together would be as representatives of the largest geographic delegation to the AAG Although I agree with Pyrs that there are real issues about "who journals (especially "Transactions" and "Area") `belong to'" which go far beyond the formal legal ownership of the RGS, it remains true that journals need to pay for themselves. The classic problem of unregulated liberal capitalism is that of the free rider - where collective goods are consumed by people who won't/don't pay for them. If all this sounds like the ravings of a liberal state theorist, its because I strongly believe that when we talk about 'struggle', it means effecting change rather than opting out. Comments and rotten eggs welcome. Adam Tickell Department of Geography University of Manchester [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%