I have been following the "debate" about Greenpeace and its nomination for an
RGS award, if only because it was the decison of the AGM of the Social and
Cultural Geography Research Group that put it explicitly on the agenda.

Most people, it has to be said, have not commented on this debate and maybe this
is a sign of indifference, but I would like to say a little bit about the ground
on which this debate has been conducted.

Some background: "The Future of Critical Geography" session was productive in
many ways -- but most remarkable, for me, was the *way* in which debate was
conducted... it was open, supportive and "critical". I think that the openness
of this debate was underpinned by some fundamental changes in the way people
were assuming power relaitions operate: if we accept that power exists in
relations (and not within individuals) and if we accept that power relations are
multiple (more than just capitalism, for example) and that we are all involved
in multiple power relations, then it is *impossible* to find a place *outside*
of power relations. There are three *ifs* here, but they are important for how
we imagine oppositional spaces or sites of resistance. If we think that power
resides in individuals or specific groups, then we may argue "we" have no power
and therefore are victims of the system: e.g. Shell/Greenpeace have power, we do
not -- but there is nothing "we" can do. If power is asymmetrical, but along one
line of power, then "we" can have power but only in oppostion to a groups with
more power: we hate Shell/Greenpeace because "they" have more power than "us". 

But what if it isn't so clear what power is about? What if there are multiple
relations of power? such as class (for sure), but also nation, environment,
science...? If there are many fields of power and these fields are as mutually
constitutive (sometimes) as antagonistic, and if "we" are also embedded in, or
constituted through, exactly these same fields of power, then *where* are we to
find the pure sites of resistance? (cf "our" complicity in power/knowledge
matrices or cf "our" complicity in the *obvious* exclusions of an email
discussion group where more than 95% of people do NOT take part, let alone those
who are not subscribed...)

One of the refreshing things about "The Future of Critical Geography" was its
acknowledgement that there are multiple, shifting and fixing fields of power,
and that we are *in* them, so that there are no *pure* sites of resistance...
and that a geographical imagination helps think through political acts and
allegiences because it has an understanding of what a "poltics of position"
might be about...

not a position *outside* of power relations, and it is precisely because "we"
are inside power relations that we can consider doing things. So, no-one would
expect Greenpeace to be the goody-two-shoes of environmental politics, just as
we wouldn't expect Shell to do demonic things *everywhere* (cf its operations in
The Philippines). So, who isn't guilty of taking money...? But the question is
pointless: are we really to believe "the good" do not take money from anybody?
This is in line with arguments which end up with "if you're a *real* socialist,
you'd give your shoes to the poor...".

Lets face it, no-one knows what the best or most radical strategies are and it
may be that the strength of critique lies in its choosing as many oppositional
tactics as it can imagine... maybe one will work! It is possible to do things
one step at a time and for those things to be neither stupid nor offensive.
People have to take the steps they have to take, but please lets not use this
forum as a space where peoples' actions and thoughts get trashed as [quote]
stupid and offensive... surely we can see, now, how awkward and difficult every
political act is, how difficult and awkward it can be to justify, just as we
hope that it will have some (small) political gain... whatever we do today in
the RGS, it will not stop capitalism nor will it stop the RGS, but it might make
a difference... and, even if it only makes a difference to us, then maybe we
should be kinder to ourselves in our discussions of the appropriate political
strategies/tactics to adopt...

In this forum, I hope we should feel *free* to explore new ideas and new avenues
for political actions and ideals... if "critical" geography is about criticising
power relations, then we have to recognise the power relations implicit in
adopting positions that are supposedly free of power relations (the moral high
ground, for example); and if "critical" geography is aware of the production of
boundaries between the good and the bad, then we should worry about where those
boundaries are being (fore)closed.

Greenpeace: good or bad? Aside from Adam Tickell's excellent arguments, the
small point is to have Greenpeace awarded the year after Shell... Greenpeace
could always refuse... and the year after that... who knows?

Blah, blah, blah.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%