它不是最权威的期刊，但绝对在最有趣的排行榜上遥遥领先，而我要用它来讲如何开展学(hua)术(shan)辩(lun)论(jian)
截图：http://journals.sagepub.com/home/dhg
[get accessed at 2017-11-17]
标题中权威的意思是有点肤浅但得到广泛认可的期刊影响因子，2016年这本期刊的数据是：
2016 SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) Score:
0.479 | 202/638 in Geography, Planning and Development | 1459/5327 in Social Sciences (Scopus®)
source: http://journals.sagepub.com/impact-factor/dhg [get accessed at 2017-11-17]
在我眼中学术期刊的有趣有两个很个人化的衡量指标：其一在于其中的scholarly debate（学术激辩）是不是像金庸武侠小说的华山论剑一样高手过招你来我往，其二在于其中的标题是不是不落窠臼令人读了之后停不下来。
这本期刊给自己的定位是这样：
The primary aim of Dialogues in Human Geography is to stimulate open and critical debate on the philosophical, methodological and pedagogic foundations of geographic thought and praxis. It publishes articles, with responses, which seek to critique present thinking and praxis and set the agenda for future avenues of geographic thought, empirical research and pedagogy. Dialogues is theoretical in orientation, forward looking, and seeks to publish original and innovative work that pushes the boundaries of geographical theory, praxis and pedagogy through a unique (in Geography) and innovative format of open peer commentary. This format strongly encourages engaged dialogue. The scope of the journal is both the broad agenda of human geography as a whole (and in relation to the social sciences, humanities, and environmental sciences more generally) and specific ideas, debates, and modes of praxis within disciplinary sub-fields. It has relevance and utility to those interested in all aspects of the discipline.
source: https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journal/dialogues-human-geography [get accessed at 2017-11-17]
按照我的风格就可以翻译为：
我们存在的主要目的就是激发就地理思想和实践的哲学、方法论、教学论基础而进行开放而理性的辩论。
我们在此发表文章及对该文章的回应，就是想要寻求对于当前思想和实践的评论；我们对地理学思想、实证研究和教学法的未来路径都充满好奇，所以聚在这里辩论。
这里的对话有理论导向也有前瞻性，在这里发表原创、创新的文章是为了让我们一起把地理学理论、实践和教学法的边界在拓宽一点。所以我们选用的是开放的同行评论模式。
这种形式也因此特别鼓励我们运用期刊的平台让人能够参与到对话中来。
这本期刊既涵盖了人文地理的广泛议题（涉及社会科学、人文、广义上的环境科学），同时也有对于学科附属领域的某一特定理念、辩题、实践模式进行的专刊。
这也是为什么对地理学科感兴趣的人会觉得它相关且有用。
看到这里就觉得热血澎湃有没有，于是在这里奉上投稿指南：
https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/journal/dialogues-human-geography#submission-guidelines
但具体暂时不表，因为我们今天的主题要先看看它最新的一期是如何开展学术辩论的，又是多么的“标题党”。
首先这一期分为两部分的专题讨论会（一篇文章+几篇评论），第一部分打头阵的是大卫·哈维的文章：
source: http://journals.sagepub.com/toc/DHG/current [get accessed at 2017-11-17]
这篇文章是哈维以“无政府主义、马克思主义、激进地理学、Simon Springer”为关键词进行回击的一篇文章，而且有点三年磨一剑的味道，因为那篇被回应的文章是三年前的。（或许这也从侧面反映出来学术界发表文章的周期？）
Abstract:
This article offers a critical response to Simon Springer’s 'Why a Radical Geography Must Be Anarchist’. From a Marxist perspective, the autonomist and anarchist tactics and sentiments that have animated a great deal of political activism over the last few years (in movements like 'Occupy’) have to be appreciated, analyzed, and supported when appropriate. To the degree that anarchists of one sort or another have raised important issues that are all too frequently ignored or dismissed as irrelevant in mainstream Marxism, dialogue—let us call it mutual aid—rather than confrontation between the two traditions is a far more fruitful way to go. Conversely, Marxism, for all its past faults, has a great deal to offer to the anti-capitalist struggle in which many anarchists are also engaged. Judging from his piece, however, Springer would want no part in such a project. He seems mainly bent on polarizing the relation between anarchism and Marxism as if they are mutually exclusive if not hostile. There is, in my view, no point in that. Honest disagreements should not be a barrier to fertile collaborations in anti-capitalist struggles. So the conclusion I reach is this: let radical geography be just that: radical geography, free of any particular 'ism’, nothing more, nothing less.
source: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2043820617732876 [get accessed at 2017-11-17]
哈维得出的结论应该是人人都很清晰：激进地理学不需要任何主义，激进地理学足矣。
但他是如何得出这个结论的过程才是重点呀，这个思路是如何形成的才最有意思，摘要不长也不难，我就不翻译了。
对这篇文章进行回应的有：
来自英国谢菲尔德大学的Jenny Pickerill以“无政府主义、希望、马克思主义、政治、激进地理学”为关键词写了一篇:
What are we fighting for? Ideological posturing and anarchist geographies
Abstract:
Recent debates in radical geography seem determined to be oppositional and in so doing simplify what is at stake. We need to celebrate and maintain the openness of geography to multiple perspectives while simultaneously developing more action-oriented, hopeful ways forward. Anarchist perspectives hold plenty of promise for radical geography, but only if we critically interrogate their principles and empirics.
source: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2043820617732914 [get accessed at 2017-11-17]
来自美国俄亥俄州州立大学的Joel Wainwright则以四个人名“David Harvey, Karl Marx, Kojin Karatani, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon”为关键词写了一篇：
What if Marx was an anarchist?
Abstract:
This essay responds to David Harvey (2017, 'Listen, Anarchist!’ a personal response to Simon Springer’s 'Why a radical geography must be anarchist’. Dialogues in Human Geography) by proposing that Karl Marx could be considered an anarchist. To make this argument, I draw on Kojin Karatani’s Transcritique: On Kant and Marx (2005, Cambridge: MIT Press).
source: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2043820617732915 [get accessed at 2017-11-17]
来自美国史密斯学院的Martha Ackelsberg和汉普郡学院的Myrna Margulies Breitbart“双剑合璧”以“无政府主义、自治、集体行动、基于社区的斗争、直接行动、教育、马克思主义、权力、准备、国家(states)”为关键词写成了一篇：
The role of social anarchism and geography in constructing a radical agenda
A response to David Harvey
Abstract:
David Harvey’s response to Simon Springer (2014) raises important questions about the places from which to draw ideas for a radical geography agenda. Nevertheless, Harvey ignores critical contributions that social anarchists (including social geographers) have made to understanding both the theory and practice of social transformation. We draw on studies of the anarchist movement in Spain before and during the Spanish Civil War to explore some of what social anarchism has to contribute to geography and contemporary struggles for a more equitable society.
source: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2043820617732916 [get accessed at 2017-11-17]
来自加拿大约克大学的Patricia Burke Wood则从“无政府主义、日常生活、领导力、马克思主义、组织”这五个关键词出发写成了一篇：
Questioning authority
Abstract:
In this commentary, I clarify and expand on anarchists’ positions on order, collectivism, organization, anti-statism, leadership, and the scale of politics. I conclude with some suggestions as to what anarchism has to offer critical geographers.
source: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2043820617732917 [get accessed at 2017-11-17]
最后的大招当然要来自加拿大维多利亚大学的Simon Springer自己来放，他以“无政府主义、无政府主义地理学、大卫哈维、等级制度、马克思主义、激进地理学、中央集权”为关键词写成了一篇：
The limits to Marx
David Harvey and the condition of postfraternity
Abstract:
Responding to David Harvey’s critique of my article, 'Why a Radical Geography Must Be Anarchist’, I reiterate the importance of anarchist perspectives in contemporary politics and geographical praxis. In challenging Harvey on the limits to Marx, I urge him to think again about the hidden vanguardism, implied statism, and veiled hierarchy that continue to lurk within the Marxist project, and importantly how these specters constrain both our collective political imagination and the possibilities of radical geography. I am admittedly very critical of Harvey, but I nonetheless refuse to close the door on dialogue between the Black and Red, even in the face of ongoing Marxist ridicule of anarchist politics. Accordingly, I propose an agonistic embrace of a 'postfraternal’ or 'postsororal’ politics on the left, where we come to appreciate ongoing conflict as a sign of a healthy leftist milieu. In doing so, we can move beyond the misguided idea that all disagreements over strategies, tactics, and organizing methods will ever be resolved. Ultimately, what I have dubbed 'the condition of postfraternity’ keeps us alert to the continually unfolding possibilities of a thoroughly politicized and forever protean space. By embracing this shifting horizon, not as a static limit to our politics but as a beautiful enabler of visionary possibilities, the rhizomes of emancipation grow stronger.
source: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2043820617732918 [get accessed at 2017-11-17]
到这里第一部分就介绍完了，第二部分也是关于资本主义本质的探讨。我看了上半场就觉得已经差不多了，但如果感兴趣，完全可以通过我提供的链接看到更多。
现在让我们跳出对于各种观点的梳理，来思考“学术辩论”（scholarly debate）的三个要义：
有理-逻辑思维
有据-参考文献
有重点-关键词、关键句、段落标题
通过学术写作进行交流是有规范的。
这不是你纯凭口才诡辩就可以胜人的地方，更是激情澎湃地只讲自己的经验而不顾更深层次的原因和机制。（不好意思，最近学批判实在论有点上瘾，说什么都会想到empirical、actual、real，但如果你感兴趣，可以看：回看批判实在论（CR）第二课| 伦敦求学记11）
用通俗一点的比喻，学术激辩有一点点像因为《大军师司马懿》而再次回归到人们视野中的“月旦评”一样，你首先需要真的读书、理解了，然后有清晰的逻辑思路来表达自己的观点、根据自己的逻辑与观点进行适当的引经据典，最后再整合成一篇前后连贯、流畅通顺的文章，将自己的思想凝聚在笔尖，尽力触及个人笔力的边缘。
嗯，说了这么多，我也觉得是时候引出下一个主题了，我要做一个：Dialogues in Geography Education。
很同意刘瑜说的一个人也要像一支军队，所以哪怕现在就是我一个人有这个小想法，我也觉得要付诸实践。
当然今天看了正义联盟的我也十分欢迎有志同道合的行动者愿意与我对话，或者就等着我敲门来找你吧。
我期待和每一个对地理教育有点好奇的你有一次对话的机会。
不过这次的起点可能和这个期刊的形式稍有不同，我想先从不那么学术的方面开始，我想先从文本意义上的“对话”开始，那就是和“从事地理教育研究的人”对话，看看他们都在做些什么，为什么做这些，又是如何做的。
欢迎你找上我，报上名号，我愿意听你的故事，也会根据你的要求进行特殊的处理，确保这个过程中你的个人隐私得到保护。
当然我可能也很可能会找上你，请你和我分享你的地理教育之路。
然后，学术这块，我们再进行讨论，先进行对话，再读了一些书、各自思考之后，进行第二轮对话、第三轮对话...
写在最后的一点，我很讨厌别人跟我说：
没时间、我很忙。
那么，请不要出现我的GEO这里，我从来都不需要默默围观的陌生人，我需要的是能够发出自己的声音、也愿意通过自己的一点点努力改变现状的“同道中人”。
我就是这么的要求多、目的性强。
关于时间管理这一点，我有一个很尊重的学界前辈是这么做的，看了我的邮件后，在去游泳的路上把自己想法说出来，然后以语音的形式发送给我。
如果真的想讨论，总有时间，即使有时间差，但不会没有时间。
没有时间潜藏的不过是这件事这个人对你来说没有那么重要，没有时间不过是一个听起来比较得体的借口罢了。
今天写得开心啦～
晚安～
明天要上一整天的课咯～