Further to Frank rennie's message, I think he is wrong on this one. It seems to
me that most people on the CGF have some sort of shared understanding of what
critical human geography is or ought to be, and that we should not therefore
get bogged down in definitional questions. Lets run with it while enthusiasm is
strong. Jo painter has given an indirect definition in his draft manifesto.
More generally, I would suggest that the history of human geography over the
last 30 years can be seen, in part, to be the replacement of old cliques with
new cliques....The positive thing is that (a) the new cliques have always had
new ideas, and (b) the turnover rate of new ideas/cliques has been quite rapid.
At least three major new theoretical schools of thought/approaches in 30 years!
The irony, of course, is that the very existence of a shared understanding some
what undermines the post-modernist, Rortyesque notion of different language
games. Maybe there is meaning beyond the text after all!
chris hamnett
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|