Print

---

Christopher

I feel the same as you, but being on the fringes of geographical life I
have no ideas how to make the group more critical.  However I thought I
would write to give my support to your contention.

Rob

	----------
	From:
[log in to unmask][SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
	Sent:  17 September 1997 19:11
	To:  [log in to unmask]
	Subject:  Death of the critical?

	Here's a thought for you.

	The first year or so of the life of the crit-geog-forum
discussion group
	was pretty lively with many members engaging in critical
debates.  I would
	say that this fertile period was fuelled primarily by two
issues: (1) the
	meaning(s) of "critical" as in critical geography; and
especially (2) the
	IBG-RGS /Shell issue.  Since then, contributions of a critical
nature have
	become intermittent and of no great volume.

	With 373 members on the list at present - and if the point above
is valid -
	why should this be so?  Some thoughts that occur to me incude:

	(i) It could be that all such groups (including real - as
opposed to
	virtual - groups) go through cycles of activity, so another
burst of
	intellectual activity will come along in due course;

	(ii) That the raison d'etre of crit-geog-forum was essentially
the Shell
	issue and it has no longer a function as a CRITICAL geography
forum.

	If the second is the case, then the honest thing would be to
abandon the
	'critical' component in the title and to 're-launch' the group
as a more
	general 'human geography billboard'.  This would open the group
to members
	possibly put off by the present title.  Part of me says that we
should
	consider this option, whilst another part of me remembers the
reason why I
	joined in the first place - that there was a need for open and
broad
	critical geography debates (and yet I too have been largely
	non-participatory).

	Does any of this make sense? Any comments?

	Christopher Ray
	Newcastle



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%