Abstract
The accused geographers reply to the critics ~ The problematic of the Bowman expeditions ~ The elusive concept of “human terrain” ~ “Let the indigenous people of Oaxaca speak for themselves” ~ Professor Herlihy’s public defense ~ Isaiah Bowman redux ~ Militant empiricism defined ~ A complex interpretive challenge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
On Althusser’s use of problematic (problématique) see For Marx (1965), where Brewster’s glossary defines problematic as the “theoretical or ideological framework” in which a concept exists and is used meaningfully (pp. 253–254). Brewster stresses that we consider “the absence of problems and concepts within the problematic as much as their presence” (my italics).
The literature on the politics of cartography has grown too vast to review here. On the politics of mapping indigenous Mexico, see especially Craib (2004); on the politics of recent indigenous counter-mapping projects in Latin America, compare Nietschmann (1995); Herlihy and Knapp (2003); Chapin et al. (2005); Bryan (2007); Wainwright (2008, chapter 6); and Wainwright and Bryan (2009a).
A search of “human terrain” and “cultural terrain” in the recent literature on human geography found no references (apart from citations of uses by the US military).
Likewise I think we can take their word that the IRB at the University of Kansas was aware of the source of their funds and did not hold up their research on these grounds (Dobson 2009; Herlihy 2010a). As IRBs exist principally to legally protect US universities, I see no reason to expect them to check militant empiricism. On IRBs and social research see AAUP (2000). On the politics of intellectual property rights and indigenous research see Madson (2008).
There is more to be said on the involvement of Aldo González, UNOSJO’s former director, in Herlihy’s initial research steps in Oaxaca, but I will withhold comment because (although I have heard the story from both sides) neither party has published a text (to my knowledge) explaining this relationship. The key point of Dobson’s critique is that González unethically inserted himself between the geographers and the community, effectively claiming to represent the indigenous peoples himself. In his essay Dobson calls out several would-be “representatives”—UNOSJO, González, and unnamed “armchair critics” (including myself no doubt)—to insist that the indigenous people “speak for themselves.” Yet we must note that Dobson’s text is written precisely in order to speak for the indigenous people of Oaxaca. Moreover, González is himself an indigenous Oaxaceño so when he speaks he could be seen as speaking from an indigenous Oaxacan community, and (based upon our engagements) he seems exceptionally careful about not claiming to speak for “the indigenous people.” In other words, the title of Dobson’s essay alone seems to be sufficient to deflate his critique of González. González no longer directs UNOSJO. After the 2010 elections in Oaxaca ejected the PRI from power, he took up a position with the state government in the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs. Hence we could say that, today, González officially “represents” the indigenous people of Oaxaca in the state, which raises the question: When González condemns the Bowman expeditions today, is his critique more legitimate for the fact that he occupies this subject-position?
According to Professor Herlihy’s 2008 curriculum vitae, in 2005–2007 he and Professor Dobson received $1.07 million from the US DoD, State Department and the Mexican state (~60% of this sum came from the US Army’s FMSO). Since 2008 they have received more funds from FMSO for expeditions to Colombia and Jordan, plus research in Honduras and follow-up work in Kansas. Given Dobson’s (2009) statement, it seems that Professors Dobson and Herlihy received US$2.5 million between 2005 and 2009. If these figures are accurate, between 2005 and 2007 they received ~$1.07 million, and in 2008–2009, another ~$1.43 million. These are not insignificant figures for our discipline. Yet we should be careful not to overemphasize money when we try to explain the motivations of those involved; ideology, disciplinary power, and even status anxiety probably play a greater role.
This is true of all the texts cited in chapter 3.
Each of the panelists were asked to speak for 10 minutes, but Herlihy spoke for more than 34. A trivial point, perhaps; yet as a consequence the other speakers on the panel (including two would-be critics) had to cut their remarks short.
On indigenous mapping, see note 2.
See Smith (2003), passim. The prologue of American empire concludes by noting that Isaiah Bowman has fallen into almost complete obscurity, even within geography (p. xxii); yet, ironically, as American empire was in press, geographers were busily exhuming Bowman—to set him back to work for America’s empire. This makes Smith’s closing remark in the prologue all the more prescient: “[Bowman] is comparatively invisible today precisely because of the sharpness with which he expressed the contradictions of liberalism from inside [... ] the vortex of power” (p. xxii, italics in original). Bowman’s return exposes these contradictions anew—and makes Smith’s study crucial.
These generalizations are not intended to foreclose a closer reading of these texts. It would be useful to return to them to produce a more patient reading than I can offer here.
Copyright information
© 2013 Joel Wainwright
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wainwright, J. (2013). Geographers Respond: I. In: Geopiracy: Oaxaca, Militant Empiricism, and Geographical Thought. Palgrave Pivot, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137301758_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137301758_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45365-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-30175-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)