Dear Raju, Jane, Jenny and All
Re: Antipode. I think that Raju is right to suggest that the content
of Antipode to some extent reflects the more general state of
'radical' scholarship within human geography at the moment. Many of
the radical academic journals of today, such as Capital & Class, have
their roots in the political radicalism and economic crises of the
1970s. I suspect that a revitalisation of Marxist scholarship within
human geography on a significant scale will depend on broader shifts
in the political-ideological climate. We live in a period when the
class dimensions to politics appear to be less relevant to everyday
life than they did 20 years ago which brings be to my next point...
Class: Some Marxist scholarship has been and will probably continue
to be 'class reductionist'. Some Marxists in the 1970s learned their
Marxism by studying some not very good Marxist work - step forward
Althusser, Poulantzas and their structuralist fellow-travellers.
However, THEIR Marxism is not ALL Marxism - and in my humble opinion
it is not actually Marxist at all (but that is another BIG debate).
If Marxists were honest I think we would have to admit that while the
quality of many critiques of Marxism are appalling - the quality of
some high profile Marxist scholarship has done the reputation of
Marxism no favours. Better quality debate within and around Marxism
requires, as a first step, clarification of the theory and concepts
we deploy.
For example, I think it would assist Marxists and non-Marxists if we
were clearer about what 'class' actually means from a Marxist
perspective, why Marxists focus on 'class', and why such a
perspective is not inherently 'class reductionist'. For example, I
don't consider the work of Erik Olin Wright to be Marxist. I think
the foundations of his class analysis are Weberian - not Marxist at
all. Some Marxists will no doubt regard this view as incomprehensible
- but debates around these kind of issues needs to take place. Such
critical self-reflection is necessary if Marxism is to prove itself
relevant to contemporary political developments and so avoid becoming
a set of static dogmas unable to speak to the concerns of young
people many of whom view the radicalism of the 1970s as ancient
history.
I think the tone of debate should be honest and forthright. Let us
not pretend that there are not deep theoretical and political
divisions between those who consider themselves as radical within
human geography. (What does 'radical' actually mean and entail - some
radical political economy leads to some not very radical conclusions
at all.) Those whose ideas and opinions are criticised should respond
- not exit the discussion. That gets us nowhere.
Michael Fisher
Centre for Urban & Regional Development Studies
Newcastle University
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|