Post modernism is an exploded field of inquiry, not a monolithic world view, and there are no "post modernists" as such. Post modernism is not a style or even a lifestyle. And even those misguided subjects who might identify themselves as postmodernists would not automatically be "Deconstructionists", "feminist geographers" or, least likely of all, Marxists. When I was at University in the 1980s post modernism was being disparaged as the thin edge of a right-wing wedge, a breath of fresh and rigorous air posed as a challenge to a waning leftist hegemony. The post modernist bogey is merely the latest incarnation of a persistent Australian anti-intellectualism. What is truly "incomprehensible" to this "average citizen" is how the so-called culture wars have come to have such a stranglehold on public discourse. Are we now so polarised that the only option is to pick a team? What happened to that space where I didn't have to be either with you or against you?

Hutak - "What happened to that space where I didn't have to be either with you or against you?"

It vaporised along with common decency, human respect and traditional family, all put to death by lefty Marxism and political correctness - "in the best interests of the child" and in the protection of our "human rights".

Maximus, to be fair, I think that's apportioning a bit much blame to leftist views - yes, they have caused problems, but the issue I have is this:

The Left is being criticized for being too accepting of ideas and notions the Right finds abhorrent - if anything, the issue with the Left is that it is too accepting, and places itself in a camp of neither for nor against, but both or none.

Think about it. It's the leftists that question western interference in the Mid east, though only the most extreme left wing commentators will excuse acts of terrorism.

Put simply - if you ask a leftie academic about issues that are typically seen as immoral they are less likely to come right out and impugn it than a Right wing academic (as rare as they may be).

I'm not saying this is wrong or right, basically, I'm saying that I don't think you can chalk the death of the space of "neither for nor against" up to the Left, if anything, I tend to think the right is much less accepting of things they deem as being wrong than the Left (well, the moderate ones anyway).

Argh. I just read my post and it was far from clear. Let me put it like this.

In my view, in the simplest terms, and with plenty of exceptions for moderates:

Left = considers both sides of an issue. Perhaps even when they shouldn't.

Right = more of a hardline stance, and most definitely, much more guilty of spreading the "for or against us" attitude.

So I'm saying you can't chalk that infernal "for or against us" attitude up to lefties.

There. Much clearer.

TRTL, thanks for taking the time and effort to present your opinion to me. And yes, you're correct that my allocation of blame is "a bit much", but then I write like that intentionally. I always do. I write in the extreme to be controversial. I realise my tone is both confronting and arrogant. I'm a naughty man. But if you ask me, there's just too many people around all trying to be "soooo nice" and PC that it drives me mad. So I write in a broad stroke style of exaggeration and loudmouth to shake their tree and provoke response, even if the only response I provoke is backlash and animosity. I find that to be preferable to what I see as being pathetic compliance with mediocrity. A state I believe, which achieves nothing except more of the same. If there wasn't a problem in the first place, then why talk about it? If there is a problem, then let's fix it. Tut-tutting and sipping tea, as some people like to do on this venue drives me around the bend and achieves nothing.

Yeah, so I take cheap shots and don't mind when people return fire in my direction. I've got a thick skin. I suppose that I'm really one of those who are guilty of forcing the 'them and us' situation Hutak laments losing. But I'm always eager to slag the left and assign any blame to them that I can and don't overlook any opportunity to do so. Whatever.

However, I cannot agree with you on your assessment of attitudes from the right and left of politics. It's funny, because from where I stand, I see the exact opposite.

In the meantime, I was wondering if anyone had spotted the glaring illogic of my previous post - space can't vaporise! Only stuff that's in space can vaporise but space can't. It's a three dimensional void.

Cheers all.

I share the author's concerns, not necessarily about postmodernism but the lack of promotion of Geography as subject area. In every area of life geography has something to offer. It was Climate subjects of 2nd year at university that introduced me to the Greenhouse Effect and Global warming long before the media even twigged to the issue. I continue to be staggered by the impact of geography on world events. How often have major battles gone to the unlikely victor because of the local and regional geography of the battlefield?

Geography integrates the sciences, economics, history, mathematics and host of esoteric skills to provide a local. regional, national and global view of why things are and how they might change.

In '70s schools offered a choice between History and Geography. Today its one of what seems like an infinite choice. I have thought for many years that both subjects should be as compulsory as English Maths and Science.

Now in my middling years I find its a lot easier to find a book on some aspect of history in a bookshop than a similar book on geography, which I think lends argument to giving priority teaching Geography in schools.

Another hinderance is that geography is not an area promoted for its vocational potential. Yet it has such potential in water, soil, native vegetation management, town planning, social planning, infrastructure planning and development, environmental management, etc.

My question is what's the way forward? Who can be found that has a public profile to be a champion for the cause?