Jane and forum members
>
> As one of the people who volunteered to be an 'international' contact for a
> new critical geography network I must respond to the the recent email by
> Seamus G.. I cannot agree more that debate and discussion must continue. AND I
> agree that there is something a little unnerving about a sudden call for an
> international network (on a network which was already, as I saw it, based on a
> reasonably extensive, albeit english-speaking, web).
>
> But it is perhaps over-reacting to suggest that this self-conscious
> internationalisation cannot proceed without definition of what critical
> geography is. There is no doubt that the issue of the IBG-RGS merger, out of
> which the critical forum emerged, is an important issue. One might like to
> think it is a parochial issue but it is not. To be sure it impacts the daily
> lives of British geographers more than say myself, as an Australian
> geographer. But, as we have only too clearly seen, the architecture of
> alliances which underpin the RGS have troublesome outcomes which we, as
> professional geographers everywhere, need to think about.
>
> Some form of self-conscious international network is in my view the only way
> we can think through what a critical geography might be without it repeating
> some of the things we love to hate the RGS for - that is, its imperialist,
> eurocentric past/present. What is being called @a move towards critical
> geography@ is becoming a vehicle for some important networks and exchanges of
> ideas. Pinning critical geography down in definitional terms may not be what
> is needed, just yet. Above all, if there is any pinning down of the @what@ of
> critical geography then I hope that it would happen in conversations that
> ranged more widely than British and North American geography (and I don't
> simply mean including Australia and New Zealand - what about geographers in
> the rest of Europe? Central and South America, South Africa, Asia? etc etc
> etc)
>
> So for me it is whether the internationalisation might dare to move beyond the
> normal networks to include the many geographers who daily work includes having
> to engage with a range of poltical struggles which are somewhat more pressing
> than what is published in the pages of the Geographical Magazine.
>
First let me say that I am relieved by Jane's response - perhaps it
will come yet, but I was expecting a strong reaction to my
provocative comments yesterday.
Jane's idea of prmoting a genuinely international network with a
sound basis for being critical is very appealing.
Is it not a shame that one of the few African geographers - Akin
Mabogunje, who wrote the only book I know of by a geographer on the
development process has drifted into the background. One of the
major problems we have in the social sciences is the absence of a
view from the South. While geographers in general have taken a
fairly balanced approach to issus such as population growth in the
thrid world, a much more critical approach is required to counteract
naked demographic imperialism promoted by agencies like the UNFPA.
In a European context where is the ciritique of the role of research
funding which is driving research agendas and policy 'thinking' in so
many areas?
As Jane says, let is break out of the narrower perpspective and begin
to formulate areas of investigation which are truely critical.
Seamus Grimes
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|