Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Spatial dialectics and marxist geography

Spatial dialectics and marxist geography Opinion by Richard Peet In his recent paper in this journal, Neil Smith sets himself up as arbiter of which radical-geographic 'arguments, analyses and avenues of approach ... contribute to a better theoretical understanding of reality while simultaneously informing and enhancing the practical struggle of the working class'. A mere two and a half pages later some concepts have been declared (both!) 'dead and degenerate' making marxism 'vulnerable to superficial, doctrinaire critique and cooptation' (Smith, 1979, 375, 377). But we will need a bit more than Smith's plucking the occasional phrase out of context, representing this as the concept he is criticizing, saying a few words on it, and consigning it to the scrap heap, for the retention or rejection of ideas which have been a long time in gestation. This particularly applies to Smith's contemptuous dismissal of the categories 'spatial dialectics' and 'marxist geography', two terms which he associates with my name. The critical comments which follow are directed solely at the section of the Smith paper dealing with these terms. First, I used the term 'spatial dialectics' as part of an account of the attempt by marxist geographers to move through spatial description into an analysis of http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Progress in Human Geography SAGE

Spatial dialectics and marxist geography

Peet, Richard
Progress in Human Geography , Volume 5 (1): 6 – Mar 1, 1981
Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/spatial-dialectics-and-marxist-geography-kXANx3mnMO

References (15)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© 1981 SAGE Publications
ISSN
0309-1325
eISSN
1477-0288
DOI
10.1177/030913258100500109
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Opinion by Richard Peet In his recent paper in this journal, Neil Smith sets himself up as arbiter of which radical-geographic 'arguments, analyses and avenues of approach ... contribute to a better theoretical understanding of reality while simultaneously informing and enhancing the practical struggle of the working class'. A mere two and a half pages later some concepts have been declared (both!) 'dead and degenerate' making marxism 'vulnerable to superficial, doctrinaire critique and cooptation' (Smith, 1979, 375, 377). But we will need a bit more than Smith's plucking the occasional phrase out of context, representing this as the concept he is criticizing, saying a few words on it, and consigning it to the scrap heap, for the retention or rejection of ideas which have been a long time in gestation. This particularly applies to Smith's contemptuous dismissal of the categories 'spatial dialectics' and 'marxist geography', two terms which he associates with my name. The critical comments which follow are directed solely at the section of the Smith paper dealing with these terms. First, I used the term 'spatial dialectics' as part of an account of the attempt by marxist geographers to move through spatial description into an analysis of

Journal

Progress in Human Geography – SAGE

Published: Mar 1, 1981

There are no references for this article.