Paradox

Have you ever come across a new idea or concept which hasn't been part of your thinking before, and then in the following weeks, found it cropping up in everything you read? Paradox is one of those for me. First it cropped up in an article by James Proctor which I found useful in forming the conclusion to an essay about the role of Geography in the field of Political Ecology. Proctor cites Kierkegaard's view that be ability to "retain paradox is the mark of good inquiry" (1998) in calling for a geography which does not flatten reality under a forced nature-culture dualism, and this clarified for me the argument that I had formed to argue a similar point.

Having thought about this, the notion of paradox suddenly started to seem central to other aspects of my reading - particularly in work questioning the meanings of 'nature', for example Cronon's edited book Uncommon Ground. And again in literature about happiness, which I was using to explore how the economic concept of utility has failed to produce outcomes which maximise human happiness. Much of the happiness literature described how a paradoxical notion of self/the individual as divided and separate from society has tended to produce flawed understandings of happiness.

And most recently, one of the two comments posted in response to posts on this blog has been from Geoffrey Edwards, for whom paradox forms a central interest and subject of two blogs. The suggestion there is that we are in the middle of a paradigm shift from a dominance of orthodoxy to one of paradoxy. Read more here.

Anyone else have anything else to say about paradoxes?

Divided Disciplines and Institutions

One of the closing themes of my degree was the questioning of the place of geography as a discipline within academic institutions - in its sometimes uncomfortable position between the arts and sciences. Debates around this question are a common feature in academic journals (see Progress in Human Geography, Transactions, AAG), few clear conclusions are reached. However, a common suggestion implicit in this debate is that the current disciplinary structure of academic institutions might not be ideal, particularly for a subject like geography with a wide-ranging subject matter. In a recent lecture, Sir Crispin Tickell described this structure as a akin to a series of large boxes placed side by side, each containing a separate academic discipline. Although the boxes are open at the top, those working in each discipline are so far down that the walls of the boxes prevent any meaningful interaction between those from different schools. Sir Crispin's point echoed the (oh so common) call to 'think outside the box' - a call repeated by some geographers who see interdisciplinary work as the answer to the current discomfort in geography departments.

The broader question here might be: does the current practice of compartmentalising learning and knowledge-acquisition facilitate or hinder the understanding of 'the nature of things' (leaving aside for now questions of whether we can ever 'know' a 'reality')? I believe the answer is probably that the current structure of academic institutions may well hinder the development of sound understandings, particularly in the awkward case of geography. However, is this simply reflective of the way we tend to think? To divide, categorise and compartmentalise - are these practices fundamental to our way of knowing the world?

This approach, I feel, is also echoed by many environmental organisations, which tend to divide up the 'environmental problems' of the world into categories such as climate change, food, waste, energy, habitat loss, etc, and then to organise campaigns and actions centred on one of these
elements. However these issues are all clearly interlinked - all a part of the unsustainable living situation that humans have created on earth - and I would question whether the cause of 'environmentalism' is aided by presenting them to the public as separate domains.

Anyway, some thoughts that I hope to develop, particularly those concerning how well our education institutions are equipped at present to produce academics/professionals/leaders to see the bigger picture, and to address 'environmental problems' as inherently 'social problems' which must be addressed in a holistic rather than piecemeal fashion.