Hi all,
Just some quick thoughts.
I've found critical geography informative, infuriating and at times very
funny (if not necessarily intentionally so...) since joining it in the
mid 1990s. Like Paul Benneworth I value it for its sense of a critical
geographical community- ... I think its genealogy out of struggles to
get a space which isn't the corporate led/ dominated style of
organisations like the RGS (we should try to see if we can get Royal
assent) and AAG is also crucial - and has been surprisingly absent from
the terms of discussion here. In various forms the list has been a site
of some significant interventions - eg in terms of Shell and in terms of
various debates around Elsevier etc. Though I would also want to make no
claims for it as a particular site of radical efficacy...
In terms of some of the downsides- there is some trolling,
unconstructive debate- but I feel this is more reflective of online
communities per se than particularly specific to crit-geog (try Scottish
folk music forums for some proper feisty interaction...) tho there are
some rather spectacular idiosyncracies at moments and I agree some stuff
could be better (self)moderated...
I have to say I find the idea of a list that is just for announcements,
however, rather troubling. This feels like an attempt to create a rather
'post-political' notion of geographical community. The creation of a
rational, ordered, list - with no room for fissiparous argument,
academic/ political debate- seems a rather anemic future. I am of course
happy for people to create such a list- but talk of closing down this
list (even temporarily) to create space for that seems very problematic
to me. I do think the broader political assumptions/ project behind the
notion of a list that is 'just' for announcements- could usefully be
interrogated a wee bit...
Cheers
Dave
On 24/10/2012 09:17, Peter Lugosi wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Unless there is a very strict and clear policy about what can go to
> which list, consistent 'buy-in' by all subscribers, and constant
> moderation of traffic, isn't there a danger that people will simply post
> things to both lists? This will result in more emails, not fewer.
> Furthermore, by establishing more channels of communication, isn't there
> also a risk that we fragment our attention even more? Personally I think
> the issues and perspectives highlighted by different call for papers and
> event announcements encourage us to appreciate the diversity of
> geography. Surely that can't be such a bad thing? And recent cases of
> call for papers have provoked some very heated debates about the nature
> and scope of geography, so announcements have been good points of
> provocation for critical debate.
>
> All the best,
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Lugosi, PhD
> Reader
> Oxford School of Hospitality Management
> Faculty of Business
> Oxford Brookes University
> Gipsy Lane
> Oxford
> OX3 0BP
> Tel: +44 (0)1865 484 404
> Fax: +44 (0)1865 483 878
> Profile and publications:
> http://hospitality.brookes.ac.uk/staff/profile.asp?id=p0076361
>
> Academia.edu: http://oxfordbrookes.academia.edu/PeterLugosi
>
> Hospitality & Society Journal:
> _http://www.intellectbooks.co.uk/journals/view-Journal,id=194/view,page=2/_
>
>
|