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?

Hutak, great comments.

We have here another ignorant commenary from someone who does not even know what "post-modernism" is, let alone how professional geographers might be working to maintain the vigor of their field with notions like - horror - women, culture or society.

The germane points here are in fact nothing to do with "post-modernism" at all, but the far far greater dominance at universities and schools of the commodification of skills and learning, which means geography - traditional or otherwise - cannot compete with a commodified education imperative which says that hospitality or tourism is the thing to do.

I didn't do particularly well in history at high school, okay, but not brilliant. I did do very well, however in the subject known as 'geography'.

At uni as a mature student 25 years later I found that geography prepared me well for history, which was one of my majors.

History and geography are hand in glove, there is no point in trying to learn history, if you don't have a basic understanding of the geography - the place in the world, and the place itself, where the history 'occurred'. Add to that high school geography, at least 32 years ago, contained a fairly strong sociological component and you will see why I consider that history and geography must be studied side by side, particularly when a measure of geology and some biology are thrown into this mix.

To understand the history of Australia it is necessary to have a basic, at least, understanding of its geography - both physical and cultural. The same can be said of the rest of the world.

One of the basis for understanding history is the ability to read a map, to see where the resources are, to see 'the high ground', militarily, politically and economically.

So yes, more geography should be being taught alongside history, or as part of a combined syllabus. There will be some conflict of course, as I remember that English / History teachers occupied one staff room and economics / geography staff occupied another, but these obstacles can be overcome.

I found myself turned off from Geography by the year 7 sylabus in NSW when I was a distance education student. A dry subject taught by dry a poor teacher.

Years later I have become very interested in physical geography and meterology, and cultural anthropolgy, which surprised me. How could the subject I loathed in high school have become so fascinating later in life?

While I find that the authors argument that geography has become inaccessable due to "post modernism" flawed, and I see no problem with bringing critical thinking to bear on the subject, his argument that there is no champion of geography has struck a cord with me. Perhaps the high school geography sylabus may need to be reworked, not to remove any critical "post modern" components, but to make it more interesting to early high school age children. Stimulate and interest in youth and you can create a passion for life.

BTW: Right and Left = obsolete terms.

mhar, you bring into the argument about geography "women, culture or society". mhar, what about men? Or are men encompassed within "culture or society". And then, if that is so, then why do you exclude women as being different and not inclusive in "culture and society"?

Why do you hold them as separate?

Do you hold sexist values whereby women are not a natural part of culture and society, but are some sort of intrinsic alien or other, perhaps even some sort of enigma?

Why do you separate women from the entity of geography?

Even Oxford doesn't -

Geography from Oxford
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/geography
"geography - noun 1 the study of the physical features of the earth and of human activity as it relates to these. 2 the relative arrangement of places and physical features."

Nope, Oxford doesn't specify women as being special or different to geography, so why do you?

Could post-modernism have something to do with this peculiar anomaly?

Perhaps it does. All should think about it in this context.

My high schooling was in the 80's where Geography was an elective. I missed the 10 weeks compulsory study of this unit due to being away from school sick. I never studied geography.

I have had those who moved to Australia from overseas who asked why we don't teach geography. They were stunned and feel that we are letting those with a political agenda run our education system instead of doing what is best for the children and the future of a nation.

I agree.

History and geography belong together like time and space. Either one is pretty meaningless without the other.

Hi there everybody

A concern I have is that pseudo-critical commentary levelled at "deconstructionists" is a broad brush and can achieve little but a wound in the foot. This is what drives talented students out of academic corridors. That is not good for a humanities school regardless how powerful a study and its application can seem to its adherents. Other departments can crunch numbers and people in those too can think through the ethical considerations of space, place and time in relation to events.

Being in a phase of concentrated focus on writing a Health Geography student paper, I was struck by reference in Peter's article to "Geography" being "a simple and straightforward study" and part of criticism of those who "deconstruct" being that their language is "largely incomprehensible to everybody else".

It so happens that yesterday evening (and I had not seen Peter's article then ) I was spending time considering the language of various articles about Empirical Bayes Estimates and their application to spatial data analysis. I continued writing with a flair of confidence I can be wrong and it can be fixed. Some things cannot be fixed and how "simple" something seems is in the eye of the beholder. I think these comments in the text of Peter's application for attention to Geography do not serve it well.

Christina Binning

With children in school myself, I have to agree that geography is a weak subject in the present curriculum. In my school days geography was left to the "brightish", but not brightest, students, with the "lower orders" studying "social studies". I missed geogrphy at school but made up for it later as a mature student majoring in physical geography. The university I gained my award through has a quite healthy geography department, combined though with a related department.

It seems the standard of English is slipping though: "most simplest" is a double superlative, beloved of pop singers, but naughty in a forum essay.