My experience is that critical/radical geographers are much more open to
discussing these fundamental issues than Paul suggests. For those, like
Paul, who disagree with respect to the Taegu conference why not organize a
forum at the conference to raise/discuss their concerns?
Best wishes, Vera Chouinard
______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Vera Chouinard Ph: 905-525-9140 ext. 23518
Professor of Geography Fax: 905-546-0463
School of Geography and Geology Email: [log in to unmask]
McMaster University
Hamilton, Canada
L8S 4K1
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> There is still a hesitation to even discuss the underlying issues concerning
> critical / radical geography.
>
> 1. No-one seems prepared to abandon the origins of the term 'critical'. As you
> should all know by now, 'critical' social theory was a Cold War western-funded
> anti-communist ideology. (Herbert Marcuse actually worked for the CIA
> predecessor OSS).
>
> 2. Several people have used these terms to indicate a geography that is part
> of 'civil society', more-or-less its 'research agency'. This kind of geography
> is just as corrupt and immoral, as geography in the service of business.
>
> 3. Despite the assurances given, there is no indication that the Taegu
> conference will be open to any discussion of fundamental values and issues.
> This seems to apply to the ICGG as a whole. There is no place within academic
> geography (or related disciplines) where these issues can be considered.
>
> 4. The reply to my mail by Luiza Bialasiewicz, was the only indication that
> ICGG people are even aware that such issues exist. (If you are never
> confronted by any ideas which are different from the social consensus around
> you, then you will probably reject any consideration of these ideas). The
> values of the 'critical' geographers are not very diverse, and are very
> similar to mainstream geography.
>
> 5. I see almost every day new examples of fundamental value conflicts about
> spatial trends, policy and organisation (and a huge range of related issues).
> Yet often they are totally ignored by academic geography. In this respect,
> there is *no* difference between mainstream and critical geography.
>
> 6. As an example, apart from the abusive comment from Luiza Bialasiewicz,
> there was no mail response on the morality of market-democratic interventions
> - although such interventions dominated world politics twice in 1999 (Kosovo
> and Timor). There is no indication that the issue will even be on the agenda
> at Taegu. Yet this is one of the most fundamental moral issues for the next
> generation. There is a deep, deep unwillingness to abandon the positions that
> people have learned (at school, from their parents. from the media).
>
>
> --
> Paul Treanor
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|