This commentary is sympathetic to Murphy’s (2013) call for more ‘grand regional narrative’ in a public key. However, by failing to recognise the root causes of, and prevailing obstacles to, change, his call risks being purely declarative. I argue that only a few, typically established, geographers will be willing and able to occupy the ideational territory currently populated by the likes of Robert Kaplan. Even so, a few is better than none, and I also argue that teaching offers a more feasible, if indirect, arena in which public thinking about world geography can be shaped in ways consistent with Murphy’s vision.
BonnettA (2003) Geography as the world discipline: connecting popular and academic geographical imaginations. Area35(1): 55–63.
2.
CastreeN (2006) Geography’s new public intellectuals. Antipode38(2): 396–412.
3.
GirouxH (2004) Cultural studies and the politics of public pedagogy. Parallax10(2): 73–89.
4.
Harvey D (2003) The New Imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
JohnstonR (1984) The world is our oyster. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers9(4): 443–459.
6.
KaplanR (2012) The Revenge of Geography. New York, NY: Random House.
7.
MurphyAB (2013) Advancing geographical understanding: Why engaging grand regional narratives matters. Dialogues in Human Geography3(2). doi: 10.1177/2043820613490253
8.
MurphyABde BlijHJTurnerBLGilmoreRWGregoryD (2005) Forum: The role of geography in public debate. Progress in Human Geography29(2): 165–193.
9.
SaidE (1994) Culture and Imperialism. New York, NY: Vintage.
10.
SidawayJ (2012) Geography, globalization, and the problematic of area studies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Epub ahead of print 1 September 2011. doi: 10.1080/00045608.
11.
WilliamsR (1977) Marxism and Literature. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
