Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
to help students to learn to read their morning
newspapers with greater intelligence and
understanding, and to take their evening walks or
their Sunday drives with greater interest,
appreciation and pleasure. While few modern
applied geographers would regard this as an
adequate definition of their work, there is a degree
of overlap between Darby's agenda and the goals
of applied geography in that, from a realist
standpoint, Darby's activities could be regarded as
emancipatory and an example of critical science.
The second example is taken from a more
recent 'call for papers' issued in May 1997 on
behalf of the Social and Cultural and the
Population Geography research groups of the
Royal Geographical Society/Institute of British
Geographers. In preparation for a session at the
annual conference, offers of papers were
requested on the theme of 'the body'.
Additional guidelines for prospective
contributors were as follows: 'Is the body dead?
Has it been 'done'? This joint session seeks to
explore current and future critical, geographical
perspectives on 'The Body', as a discourse, as a
centre for conflict, consensus, rebellion or
domination. Participants are encouraged to
consider ways in which their own bodies can
be used to em-body their presentations. All/any
form(s) of (re) 'presentation' are welcomed.
Clearly, the research topics of interest to
participants in this conference session would
hold little appeal for many applied geographers.
Indeed, some may even be stimulated to recall
Stoddard's (1987) impatience with 'so-called
geographers…who promote as topics worthy of
research subjects like geographic influence in
the Canadian cinema, or the distribution of fast
food outlets in Tel Aviv' (p. 334).
The distinction between the contents of this
topic on
Applied geography: principles and practice
and
the proposed agenda for the 1998 IBG conference
session serves as a useful primer for our subsequent
discussions. Those who study the kind of topics
identified in the call for conference papers might
legitimise their agenda by pointing to the eclectic
nature of geography and the value of 'pure'
research; for these and other geographers, the idea
of applied geography or useful research is a chaotic
concept that does not fit with the cultural turn in
social geography or the postmodern theorising of
recent years.
We shall return to this question later but, in the
meantime, it is useful to make explicit the views
that underlie the kind of applied geography
represented in this topic. We can do this most
clearly by comparing the applied geographical
approach with an alternative postmodern
perspective. One of the major achievements of
postmodern discourse has been the illumination
of the importance of difference in society as part
of the theoretical shift from an emphasis on
economically rooted structures of dominance to
cultural 'otherness' focused on the social
construction of group identities. However, there
is a danger that the reification of difference may
preclude communal efforts in pursuit of goals such
as social justice. A failure to address the
unavoidable real-life question of 'whose is the
more important difference among differences'
when strategic choices have to be made represents
a serious threat to constructing a
practical politics
of
difference. Furthermore, if all viewpoints and
expressions of identity are equally valid, how do
we evaluate social policy or, for that matter, right
from wrong? How do we avoid the segregation,
discrimination and marginalisation that the
postmodern appeal for recognition of difference
seeks to counteract. The failure to address real
issues would seem to suggest that the advent of
postmodernism in radical scholarship has done
little to advance the cause of social justice.
Discussion of relevant issues is abstracted into
consideration of how particular discourses of
power are constructed and reproduced.
Responsibility for bringing theory to bear on real-
world circumstances is largely abdicated in favour
of the intellectually sound but morally bankrupt
premise that there is no such thing as reality. As
Merrifield and Swyngedouw (1996: p. 11) express
it, 'intriguing though this stuff may be for critical
scholars, it is also intrinsically dangerous in its
prospective definition of political action. De-
coupling social critique from its political-
economic basis is not helpful for dealing with the
