More apologies to those Forum readers who are'nt interested in this issue..but
it is important for the future of British Academic Geography
You will, by now know the result of the vote. About 1,500 for the motion and
about 4,500 against. 27% for the motion to drop Shell. It is a decisive vote
but, as both Steve Pile and Adam Tickell have pointed out, the size of the YES
vote is impressive. It is not an embrassing defeat, but indicates that a large
minority of members are unhappy with Shell being a patron.
Fundamentally, I agree with Adam Tickell. Being part of any democratic system
means that you can lose as well as win. The options are to keep on struggling
or to give up and go home (or form a new one). Many people have been losing for
the last 17 years against a government whose policies they deeply dislike, but
they have kept on struggling.
I completely accept however, Steve's view that for him this is a make or break
issue. There are clearly some things on which it is important to say 'enough is
enough' and resign if you feel strongly and if people feel that it is completelyunacceptable to be a member of an organisation of which Shell is a patron they
should resign. Whether that means that they should also stop refereeing, stop
submitting papers and perhaps stop reading the journals is another matterwhich
people will have to decide for themselves.
The RGS is clearly a heirarchical organisation where the decisions are made by
Council or the RHED, but so essentially was the IBG. The difference was in the
culture of the two organisations. The RGS-IBG is clearly more establishment
than the old IBG, and it will take some time to change its ethos. Usual analogy
of supertankers...etc
But, as Adam points out, the vote has taken place which is democratic and both
the editor of Transactions and myself were opposed to the Shell patronage. And,
as Adam also points out, Joe Painter (the founder of this forum) has just been
appointed as the next editor of Area (please send any new papers to him not to
me). the organisation is not monolithic. Another bad analogy might be struggle
between left and right in the Tory Party, or the Labour party. Anyone with any
political experience of working in organisations knows that decisions do not
always go the way you want. The option is to stay and fight or do what Arthur
Scargill has done which is to set up an alternative left party which, I suspect
will sink without trace. My concern for those who leave the RGS-IBG is to what
extent they will be isolated from the mainstream of British geography. I guess
that non-members can still submit papers to the journals (I see no reason why
not), and attend the annual conference, though whether they can be members of
study groups I am not sure.
My hope is that the vote will send signals to the RGS-IBG that changes are
afoot. What is certain, however, is that if many of the more radical members
leave, change will be slower than it might otherwise be.
Sorry to bore people with more on this issue. Chris Hamnett
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|