Dear All
I very much agree with what Jenny has written. I find this quick
positioning of people as 'more radical' or 'less radical' very disturbing.
I also find disturbing the quick [and unfounded] assumptions that are
sometimes made in discussions on the list: eg if X makes a posting on an
issue addressing gender they are immediately accused of not dealing with
class, or race or whatever; if someone posts something on a political
movement, it is immediately assumed they are 'dissing' those engaged in a
more subtle politics of everyday life [and vice versa]...
It seems to me the tendency is to use [presumed or real] 'differences'
[and I include class in this] as a weapon that can be turned in any
direction, sometimes more for the purpose of scoring intellectual points
than furthering our real understanding of issues, or the intellectual
positions of our colleagues, or as Jenny has said, the political contexts
these positions have emerged in.
I would like to add, for me personally anyway, that it is important to try
to work *with* and *across* these differences rather than use them as a
basis for further exclusion. Of course this isnt easy, and it is not to
imply that we will always agree with one another, but surely the point is
to engage in a way that increases our understanding of potential links
between differently articulated positions rather than forcing us back into
a deadlocked battle of binaries?
I was drawn to this list orginally becuase I saw in it the potential for
debate in geography that paralleled intellectual developments in British
cultural studies. It was the *very diversity* of interests of the
listmembers that I found attractive..... Stuart Hall said it very well I
thought, in his article 'Theoretical Legacies' [in Cultural Studies
Routledge 92] when he talked about the "radical expansion of notions of
power" in a discourse *made stronger* by sucessive theoretical
interruptions and challenges, including feminist and anti racist
perspectives, to name a few.
I would hope the crit geog list can live up to this promise, becuase I am
not sure that we have many other options, or that these problems wouldn't
simply reappear somehwere else.
Sue Ruddick
At 01:47 PM 11/25/99 -0000, you wrote:
>Dear All
>
>When Linda McDowell took over the editorship of Antipode in the Uk, I was
>very pleased to see her editorial letter, which explicitly encouraged
>submission of articles across a breadth of radical scholarship. Perhaps as
>one of the foremost feminist scholars in the discipline, this enthusiasm on
>her part should remind of at least one reason why a radical geography
>prioritising class is not always going to be helpful. And of course, there
>are many other reasons to build on and move beyond the class-reductionism of
>some early Marxism in Geography.
>
>I would ask that perhaps once again we are in danger of being a bit rude and
>exclusionary to fellow list members. We may disagree theoretically or
>politically - but there may well be good reasons for that. Feminist politics
>might be one very good reason not to choose to be class-reductionist.
>Similarly many of us have developed our intellectual and political
>commitments in a wide range of political contexts, which have made us think
>very hard about the value of some forms of class-based political analysis.
>Personally, I grappled, with the help of David Harvey's work, to understand
>urban movements which were of course shaped by class divisions and by
>capital accumulation, but which were also as much to do with anti-state
>politics and with diverse community experiences. I can't say that I like
>being asked to place myself in a position which is receiving such
>denigration as is being expressed on the CGF just now, especially not when
>many of my intellectual judgements grow out of a strong commitment to a
>certain very challenging politics.
>
>I know that people are leaving the list because of the nature of the
>accusations, exchanges and assumptions which are dominating it at the
>moment. I have asked before that we might be more respectful of one
>another's differences as we debate things. I doubt I can do that again
>without seeming very boring - and I didn't like very much the responses it
>elicited last time round. To be very (and deliberately) provocative: Is it
>perhaps time to abandon the CGF? But perhaps that's happened already....
>
>Jenny Robinson
>
>?----Original Message-----
> From: Raju Das [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 25 November 1999 12:55
> To: Jane Wills
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Radical Pol. Economy, Class and Antipode: We are
>ALL critica
>
> Jane,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I look forward to hearing what others will
> have to say in the debate on Antipode. I'm afraid I don't have
> anything more to say than I what I have already said (pl. see my
> response to Jim Blaut as well).
>
> You are saying 'we are not wanting to limit the journal too much'.
> But then how much exactly can you limit it? I did not mean to be
> impolite at all -- I am just wondering.
>
> If it is true that Antipode is not radical enough, not _anti_
>enough,
> as I have said and people like Jim Blaut agree, there might be
> two reasons.
>
> 1. Structural: Antipode cannnot be more radical than its catchment
> area (a river would be muddier if its catchent area has loose soil,
> other things constant). The so-called radical scholarship in
> Geography itself is not radical enough.
> 2. 'Agencial': The editorship may be parly to blame: perhaps it has
> not encouraged radical works to be submitted and accepted. The
> editorship itself is not radical enough perhaps. * Perhaps
> the editorial policy is not radical enough. But then I don't
> know how the editorial policy is determined.
>
> Raju
>
> But one might say: what about Society and Space under the
> editorship of Neil Smith, who is very radical in my view? Dick
>Walker
> is, of course, much more radical than many of the so-called radical
> authors who have published their papers in Antipode.
> Raju J Das
> Department of Geography
> University of Dundee
> Dundee DD1 4HN
> United Kingdom
> Phone 01382 348073 work
> 01382 737097 home
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|