CFP AAG 2017: Practicing Citizenship: What Roles for Conformity? Dissent? Protest?

Call For Papers
AAG 2017 Boston (April 5-8, 2017)

Session title: Practicing Citizenship:  What Roles for Conformity?  Dissent?  Protest?

Citizenship is often promoted as a way of consolidating a public or a polity that might otherwise seem divided or fractured.  In this way, citizenship is imagined as more than a public or legal standing, but is promoted as a practice and way of being together that can provide a salve for a society’s wounds.  This is evident in a range of contemporary settings, from the citizenship education programs in many western school curricula to international efforts to foster citizenship in post-conflict settings.

Used in this way, citizenship can seem to imply conformance with a set of rules and expectations about how an individual should be in public, encompassing their comportment, the ideas and arguments that are acceptable, and ways of relating to each other.  Critics have argued that encouraging citizenship as a salve for conflict and division, however, is a way of challenging dissent, depoliticizing it, and of delegitimizing dissent and protest.  In this way, citizenship is enrolled in post-political consensus.  Yet around the world, we see expressions of dissent and protest, often invoking agents’ rights as citizens or attempting to expand the boundaries of citizenship and the possibilities for dissent and challenges to political structures and institutions.  These examples often highlight the hegemony of particular assumptions about and practices of citizenship; in so doing, they enable nuanced understandings of the relationships between apparent conformity, dissent, and citizenship.

We invite paper submissions that address the practice of citizenship, the acceptability and legitimacy of behaviors, and the political challenges that citizenship – as an idea, a practice, and a set of values – enables and constrains.  Topics might include, but are not limited to:

*  The values that implicitly underpin citizenship discourses and practices

* Protest and dissent in authoritarian or ‘non-democratic’ states

* The relationships between a politics and ethic of care, citizenship and dissent

* The conditions under which the right to dissent and protest are legitimately challenged

* The ways in which dissent and protest are managed in conflictual or divided societies

* The possibility that apparent conformity may be used to challenge political assumptions and practices

* The relationships between citizenship, belonging and democracy

If interested in participating in these sessions, please send abstracts of 250 words to Lynn Staeheli ( or Sandy Marshall ( by 10 October 2016.

CFP AAG 2017: Reparations, Restitution, Reconciliation?

Call For Papers
AAG 2017 Boston (April 5-8, 2017)

Session title: Reparations, Restitution, Reconciliation?

AAG, Boston, April 5-9, 2017

Ta-Nehisi Coates’s article, “The Case for Reparations” (The Atlantic, June 2014), has reignited demands for restitution for the “multi-century plunder of black people in America,” who have faced economic dispossession not only because of the ongoing legacy of slavery but other legal and extra-legal racist practices such as redlining, block-busting, incarceration, employment insurance, and GI Bill benefits. Since then, Black Lives Matter has also taken up “reparations for past and continuing harms” as one of its core demands, to remedy the poverty gap that they identify as arising from colonialism, slavery, redlining, mass incarceration and surveillance.

The demands for reparations by groups who have been marginalized, oppressed and subject to social, political and economic violence, stands in stark contrast with how money has been disbursed by governments and/or corporations as part of reconciliation proceedings or legal actions. Too often, money is used as a tool to silence dissent, and to sidestep accountability. For example, as part of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, monies have been allocated to all survivors of Indian Residential Schools, with additional monies for those who suffered the most egregious forms of abuse. But only a paltry $2 million has been allocated for the 31,000 claims already decided. With respect to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, BP set up a $20 billion trust to make reparations. But payments were so slow, that federal, state and local claimants had to turn to a class action suit to access funds. In neither of these cases has reparations led to the kind of transformative change envisioned by Coates.

This session will explore both the potential and pitfalls of putting a price on dispossession, violence and harm. In particular, papers are encouraged that consider the forms of social justice that are made possible or problematic by different forms of monetary compensation. This might include critiques of compensation practices that have already been enacted, or reflections on future opportunities. Examples from sites around the world are encouraged. Among the questions to be addressed are: What are the political stakes of reparations? What does it mean to put a price on social and political violence? How do monetary payments sit alongside other forms of redress? What kinds of violence are made visible, and what kinds are rendered invisible? What kinds of processes would be required to enact more equitable forms of redistribution? How can reparations be imagined anew? Papers are welcomed on any forms of reparation or compensation, including, but not limited to, colonialism, slavery, environmental damage, war, and terrorism.

Registration for the AAG and the submission of abstracts (of no more than 250 words) will be required by October 20, 2016. But, to better plan for the session, I encourage expressions of interest as soon as possible, and by October 15th at the latest, at

CFP AAG 2017: Anarchist Political Ecology: Theoretical Horizons and Empirical Axes

Call For Papers
AAG 2017 Boston (April 5-8, 2017)

Session title: Suburban Geographies of Crisis and Change


Coleman Allums, University of Georgia

Scott Markley, University of Gerogia


The 2007–2008 subprime mortgage crisis brought widespread attention to the conditions of suburbs in the United States, triggering a proliferation of critical interventions from across disciplines. These interventions investigated issues such as the “suburbanization of poverty,” suburban redevelopment, and the suburban socioeconomic and demographic changes that transpired during the years leading up to the crisis. This work has contributed to a reassessment—in theory and praxis—of the ways in which scholars and activists engage with numerous social and economic questions, which, for a long period, were considered the exclusive domain of the urban.

Now a decade removed from the advent of what has been called the Great Recession, we are interested in the post-crisis developments that have begun to unfold on the political, social, economic, and racial/ethnic landscapes of US suburbs. This session seeks to reveal and untangle the interacting processes undergirding these recent developments. In doing so, it aims to lend insights into the changing—or in some cases, persistent or recurrent—character of the suburban patchwork.

Within this basic framework, we invite critical contributions that speak to the following themes:

• Suburbanization of poverty
• Suburban gentrification and redevelopment
• Cityhood and annexation
• Race and racialization
• Spatial inequality and mobility
• Neighborhood inequality and residential segregation
• Housing construction and demolition
• Suburban planning
• Local political governance and economic development
• Suburban neoliberalization and (sub)regional competition

Potential session participants should submit abstracts (250 words maximum) to Coleman Allums ( and Scott Markley ( by October 5th, 2016. Notification of acceptance into the session will be provided by October 10th. Participants will then be expected to register and submit their abstracts through the AAG website by October 27th.

CFP AAG 2017: Anarchist Political Ecology: Theoretical Horizons and Empirical Axes

Call For Papers
AAG 2017 Boston (April 5-8, 2017)

Session title: Anarchist Political Ecology: Theoretical Horizons and Empirical Axes

Martin Locret-Collet and Simon Springer

1 – School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham,

2 – Department of Geography, University of Victoria,

Political ecology is a loosely defined area of study encompassing a large number of approaches (Clark 2012). Paul Robbins (2012: 20) points out that, more than a strictly defined academic field, it is ‘a term that describes a community of practices united around a certain kind of text’. Despite this rich plurality, the genealogy of political ecology is quite easy to trace: two major intellectual figures of the 19th century, Peter Kropotkin and Elisée Reclus, are widely accepted as its founding fathers. Both men were of course anarchists and geographers, and yet in spite of their early influence on the field, a contemporary anarchist political ecology has been slow to emerge. This absence is particularly surprising given the recent (re)turn towards anarchist geographies and the vast potential such a lens offers on insisting that environmental challenges be politicized in such a way that questions the role of the state, capitalism, and other hierarchical orderings embedded within human societies (Clough and Blumberg 2012; Souza et al. 2016; Springer et al. 2012; Springer et al. 2016; White et al. 2016).

It is hard to deny the role that anarchist theory had in breaking the prevailing tradition of environmental determinism in geography, where Kropotkin (1885) and Reclus (1894) refused to be complacent in seeing the physical attributes of a territory as determining the moral and corporeal traits of the people inhabiting that land, as well as their social organization. Their anarchism was defined as much by a rebuke of capitalism as it was by challenging deeply ingrained imperialist views on race and social domination (Clark and Martin 2013; MacLaughlin 2011). Their intellectual departure was a broadened understanding of geography that insisted that the social, the political, the economic and indeed the environmental were all integral considerations in writing about the earth. Such theoretical insurgency was an outgrowth of the amalgamation of their philosophical and political thinking in concert with a deeply held concern for social justice and environmental advocacy (Mullenite 2016). As anarchists they rejected the concept of centrality, refused the legitimacy of all forms of domination, and drawing from evolutionary theory, they insisted on an ecological perspective that did more than reduce human systems and ecosystems to mere competition, arguing that cooperation and symbiotic living, or ‘mutual aid’, were absolutely essential for any species to thrive (Dugatin 2011; Ferretti 2011).

Recent efforts among anarchist geographers to re-investigate foundational concepts like ‘space’ (Springer 2016) and ‘territory’ (Ince 2012) have helped to cast a new light on the flows and regulations that shape contemporary life and spatial organization, both in and outside of neoliberal and consumerist developments. Political ecology, as a very diverse body of work that tries to articulate the ever-changing dialectic between society and environmental resources, and further, between the various classes, communities and groups constituting society itself (Heynen et al. 2006), offers considerable latitude for the deployment and development of anarchist thought and critique. It is peculiar then that most political ecologists seem to shy away from further engagement with anarchist theory (cf. Death 2014), falling back on Marxism and neo- Marxism, which remain the dominant political ideologies in the field. Given that the State is an institution inextricably bound to capitalism (McKay 2011), and thus undeniably one of the primary perpetrators of environmental ruination, this is a curious crutch, worthy of our suspicion and doubt. While Murray Bookchin (1971, 1982) critiqued anti-ecological trends under the banner of ‘social ecology’ in the 1970s and 80s, the remerging field of anarchist geography in the 2010s has yet to advance an ‘ecology of freedom’ that demonstrates a sustained engagement with important domains like environmental justice, resource security, and ecological governance.

While Kropotkin and Reclus never actually characterized their work as ‘political ecology’, as the use of the term did not come into widespread use until the 1970s, their thought unquestionably helped to lay its foundations. Their conceptions of interdependent human-environment interactions were supported by extensive and rigorous fieldwork, and decidedly non-centrist approaches to politics and ecology (Kropotkin 1892, 1902, 1912), which included a decentering of the human figure (Reclus 1901), as well as anticipating deep ecology perspectives, critiques of anthropocentricism, and the eventual arrival of more-than-human geographies over a century later. In sum, anarchism is inseparable from an ecological perspective (Carter 2007). Anarchist geography and political ecology consequently have much in common and much to offer to each other, philosophically, theoretically and methodologically. We therefore encourage papers that are able to expand the theoretical horizons and empirical axes of an explicitly Anarchist Political Ecology by addressing key questions around:

  • Biodiversity in the Anthropocene
  • Extractivism and Environmental Ruination
  • Environmental Ethics and Environmental Justice
  • Deep Ecology, Gaia Theory, and Spiritual Ecology Movements
  • Food Sovereignty and Communalism
  • Veganism, More-Than-Human Geography, and Anthroparchy
  • Carbon Trading, Carbon Offsetting, and the Capitalocene
  • Enclosure and the Reclamation of the Commons
  • Green Politics, Ecologism, and the Limits of Marxism
  • Mutual Aid beyond Resilience and Coping
  • Bioregionalism, Decentralization, and Radical Democracy
  • Neoliberalism, Commodification, and the Question of ‘Nature’
  • Post-Scarcity Anarchism and the Ecology of Freedom
  • Sustainability and Greenwashing
  • Indigenous Knowledges and Conservation
  • Green Anarchism, Primitivism, and Misanthropy
  • Transhumanism, Technofixes, and Technocracy
  • Biopolitics, Biotechnologies, and Bioengineering
  • Anarchafeminism, Gender, and the Environment
  • Climate Change, Industrialization, and Renewable Energy
  • Agroecology, Agrarian Change, and Global South Movements
  • De-Coupling and De-Growth

We also welcome presentations in non-traditional and participatory formats. Also, if you would like to participate in other ways (e.g. discussant) then please feel free to contact us as well. Please send abstracts of no more than 250 words to both and by 21 October 2016Please note: Once you have submitted an abstract to us and it is accepted, you will also need to register AND submit an abstract on the AAG website.

The AAG abstract deadline is 27 October 2016


Bookchin, M. (1971). Post-scarcity Anarchism. Berkeley: Ramparts Press.

Bookchin, M. (1982). The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Palo Alto: Cheshire Books.

Carter, N. ed. (2007). The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, J. P. (2012). Political ecology. In Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, 2nd Ed., Vol. 3. San Diego: Academic Press, 505–516.

Clark, J. P. and Martin, C. (2013). Anarchy, Geography, Modernity: Selected Writings of Elisée Reclus. Oakland: PM Press.

Clough, N., and Blumberg, R. (2012). Toward anarchist and autonomist Marxist geographies. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies,11(3), 335-351.

Death, C. ed. (2014). Critical Environmental Politics. New York: Routledge.

Dugatin L. A. (2011) The Prince of Evolution: Peter Kropotkin’s Adventures in Science and Politics. New York: CreateSpace.

Ferretti, F. (2011). The correspondence between Élisée Reclus and Pëtr Kropotkin as a source for the history of geography. Journal of Historical Geography, 37(2), 216-222.

Heynen, N., Perkins, H. A., and Roy, P. (2006). The political ecology of uneven urban green space the impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Affairs Review, 42(1), 3-25.

Ince, A. (2012). In the shell of the old: Anarchist geographies of territorialisation. Antipode, 44(5), 1645-1666.

Kropotkin, P. (1985). What geography ought to be. The Nineteenth Century CXXVI, 18 December: 940-956.

Kropotkin, P. (1892) 2011. The Conquest of Bread. New York: Dover.

Kropotkin, P. (1902) 2008. Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution. Charleston: Forgotten.

Kropotkin, P. (1912) 1994. Fields, Factories, and Workshops. Montreal: Black Rose.

MacLaughlin, J. (2016). Kropotkin and the Anarchist Intellectual Tradition. London: Pluto.

McKay, I. ed. (2014). Direct Struggle Against Capital: A Peter Kropotkin Anthology. Oakland: AK Press.

Mullenite, J. (2016). Resilience, Political Ecology, and Power: Convergences, Divergences, and the Potential for a Postanarchist Geographical Imagination. Geography Compass, 10(9), 378-388.

Reclus, E. (1894). The Earth and Its Inhabitants: e Universal Geography. London: J. S. Virtue.

Reclus, E. (1901). On vegetarianism. Humane Review.

Robbins, P. (2012). Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.

Souza, M. L. de, White, R. J., and Springer, S. Eds. 2016. Theories of Resistance: Anarchism, Geography and the Spirit of Revolt. London: Roman & Littlefield.

Springer, S. 2016. The Anarchist Roots of Geography: Toward Spatial Emancipation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Springer, S., Ince, A., Pickerill, J., Brown, G., and Barker, A. 2012. Reanimating anarchist geographies: a new burst of colour. Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography. 44(5), 1591-1604.

Springer, S., White, R. J., and Souza, M. L. de. Eds. 2016. The Radicalization of Pedagogy: Anarchism, Geography and the Spirit of Revolt. London: Roman & Littlefield.

White, R. J., Springer, S., and Souza, M. L. de. Eds. 2016. The Practice of Freedom: Anarchism, Geography and the Spirit of Revolt. London: Roman & Littlefield.

CFP AAG 2017: Cross-Border Co-operation in West Africa

Call For Papers
AAG 2017 Boston (April 5-8, 2017)

Session title: Cross-Border Co-operation in West Africa

Organizers: Olivier Walther, University of Southern Denmark and Rutgers University; Marie Trémolières, OECD

Session description: West Africa is subdivided by 32 000 kilometres of land borders which, if placed end-to-end, would almost circle the Earth. Most of these territorial divisions are the legacy of colonisation and were long considered to be obstacles to regional integration. West African borders are often criticised for the costs and time delays related to border crossing, as well as for obstructing the free movement of traders and individuals and encouraging corruption. This session adopts a different approach to West African borders. Its aim is to discuss how cross-border co-operation contributes to the regional integration process. Building on an ongoing research project that examines the current challenges of cross-border co-operation in the region, we are particularly interested to understand more about the economic potential of West African regions, the structure of cross-border policy networks, the spatial perceptions of the region’s policy makers, and the place-based policies that could be developed in the region. The session’s geographical and relational approach to cross-border co-operation is different from the more commonplace analyses of West Africa which describe the legislative and institutional principles of co-operation, without necessarily considering the geographic dimension of the spaces and actors involved. For the most part, this aspect of CBC is still relatively unknown.

The session will capitalise upon recent geographical scholarship on cross-border co-operation to explore themes such as:

  • micro-regions and regional integration
  • borders and policy networks
  • spatially-blind vs. place-based policies
  • economic development in border regions
  • emergent policy approaches to cross-border cooperation
  • innovative methodologies for studying CBC (network analysis, mental maps)

We invite papers on these or related topics. Please send proposed titles and abstracts (250 words or less) and/or expressions of interest to both Olivier Walther ( and Marie Trémolières ( no later than 15 October 2016.

We will notify contributors of acceptance by 20 October 2016. All accepted contributors will then need to register for the conference through the AAG website, and should then send the registration code (PIN) they receive to us. Please note that you must submit your abstract AND also pay the registration fees in order for your PIN to be activated.

CFP AAG 2017: Contradictions of the Climate Friendly City: Critical Perspectives on Urban Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Call For Papers
AAG 2017 Boston (April 5-8, 2017)

Session title: Contradictions of the Climate Friendly City: Critical Perspectives on Urban Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation


Daniel Alanda Cohen, University of Pennsylvania

Joshua Long, Southwestern University

Jennifer L. Rice, University of Georgia

Session Description

As many cities begin implementing various climate change mitigation and adaptation plans, critical scholars are increasingly noting the unintended and negative consequences of addressing climate change through urban governance. For example, the accounting methods used to measure GHG emissions at the urban scale dramatically underestimate the effects of affluence, income, and consumption of the city’s most elite residents. This undermines the very point of the urgent imperative to slash urban GHG emissions. Similarly, climate resiliency efforts often do more to sustain urban economies and corporate interests, than to safeguard the actual residents who live in cities threatened by climate change. Furthermore, desires for prevailing modes of high-density urbanization, or sophisticated kinds of greening and resilience, largely cater to professional classes, producing new forms of urban displacement. Although cities were once hailed as potential sites of climate transformation or experimentation, new forms of disenfranchisement and inequality seem to be perpetuated by many urban efforts at climate change mitigation and adaptation, while actual low-carbon and pro-adaptation progress is questionable. These issues require new conceptual and theoretical frameworks to understand exactly what is at stake with urban interventions into climate change. This session (or set of sessions) seeks to provide a space for critical interventions and research on urban climate governance. We seek a broad range of theoretical and empirical studies from a variety of contexts, and we welcome participatory and/or activist-oriented modes of research as well.  

Areas of research to be included in the session could include, but are not limited to:

·      Social justice concerns, such as gentrification or food access, in the design or implementation of  “climate friendly” policies.

·      Inadequacies of current GHG accounting methods, “smart” growth/grids/technologies, technological interventions, or other technocratic forms of governing used in cities.

·      Question of what resilience and resourcefulness look like for urban climate governance and adaptation, especially among the city’s most vulnerable residents.

·      Issues of representation, participation, and democracy in urban climate policy-making.

·      New theoretical or methodological interventions into current conceptualizations of urban climate governance.

·      Detailed critical case studies of particular cities, policies, or urban advocacy groups working to address climate change.

Please send an abstract and contact information to Jennifer Rice ( by October 1st. We will notify regarding acceptance into the session by October 7th.

Announcing the 2017 PGSG preconference at Harvard!

The AAG Political Geography Specialty Group is pleased to announce that the 30th Annual Preconference will be held at Harvard University on Tuesday, April 4, 2017, hosted and supported by the Center for Geographic Analysis, the Institute for Quantitative Social Science, and the Department of Government.

Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 [Please note that the AAG main conference begins on a Wednesday this year]

Time: Sessions will run from approximately 8 am – 5 pm

Location: CGIS South Building, 1730 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 [see here]

Paper presenters: Paper titles and abstracts of 250 words or less are due February 1, 2017. Please submit them with PAPER ABSTRACT SUBMISSION in the subject line to:

Poster presenters: For the first time, PGSG is welcoming poster proposals. Preconference participants may only present in one medium (paper or poster, but not both). Poster titles and abstracts of 250 words or less are due February 1, 2017. Please submit them with POSTER ABSTRACT SUBMISSION in the subject line to:

Registration: As with our past preconferences, there will be a nominal $20 registration fee for faculty only. Faculty, please bring cash or checks on the day of the event.

Evening events: In addition to the annual group dinner after the preconference, PGSG will coordinate a social hour on Monday night for early arrivals. More details to follow.

Lodging & transportation: The Harvard campus is easily accessible from the AAG venues in Boston via the MBTA’s Red Line. We suggest preconference attendees choose the same lodging they would for the main conference, but for those who would like more information about housing in the Cambridge area, click here.

AAG scheduling: Should you have any concerns about the scheduling of your main conference presentation, coordinate with your session organizers and AAG administrators.

PSGG organizers: Natalie Koch (, Kenneth Madsen (

Inquiries: Please do not contact local hosts. All inquiries should be directed to the PGSG organizers individually or at:

CFP AAG 2017: Experiments in Force II: Science and the Apparatus of Warfare

Call For Papers
AAG 2017 Boston (April 5-8, 2017)

Session title: Experiments in Force II: Science and the Apparatus of Warfare

Recent work in geography has not only attempted to identify and describe the networks, norms, agendas, spaces and actors that constitute environments of security, but has also identified how manifold notions of security co-exist, compete and shift over time and from place to place.  The roles that science and technology adopt in the realm of security present extensive areas for study: how, when and by whom is science used to justify, legitimize and procure security initiatives? How are science and technology used to create ‘solutions’ to security problems, and how and when do they lead to security problems themselves? How are ethical concerns balanced with national security, and what constitutes legitimate regulation of norms? Are norms changing? This panel builds on UCL’s Global Governance Institute’s ( two-day international conference on the interdisciplinary theme of science, technology and security held on 20-21 June 2016. In this paper session we seek to further delve into these questions, looking in particular at the geopolitics of technology and security assemblage.

Sample subject areas include:

  • Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear (CBRN) issues
  • Cybersecurity and the ‘internet of things’
  • Drones and surveillance
  • Weapons proliferation and arms control
  • Regulating risky and emerging technologies
  • The role of (gendered/raced/differentiated) human bodies in security assemblages

Full abstracts of no more than 250 words should be submitted by 30th September to the session organisers Jason Dittmer and Anna Feigenbaum

CFP AAG 2017: Experiments in Force I: Science and the Apparatus of Warfare

Call For Papers
AAG 2017 Boston (April 5-8, 2017)

Session title: Experiments in Force I: Science and the Apparatus of Warfare

Recent developments in the means and techniques of warfare have raised questions anew about the spatial delimitation of the battlefield, the legal and ethical norms about killing, and the migration of military technologies to other spheres of security practice. In response, scholars from a variety of disciplines have worked to make sense of these changing geographies of war and violence through scholarship on weapons systems, algorithmic surveillance, special operations, and logistics and infrastructure. Within this work, one approach has been to explore warfare as a set of interrelated processes and has emphasized the longer genealogies and historical geographies of the technologies and materialities of these practices (Kim 2016, Gordillo 2014, Chamayou 2015, Salter 2015, 2016). Less attention, however, has been devoted to historical role of science, and particularly scientific experimentation and testing, in designing, using and managing the scope and consequences of these war technologies and practices over time (c.f. De Landa 1991, Bousquet 2009, Howell 2011, Johnson 2015).

Drawing on a tradition of viewing science as a political practice (Latour 1987, Schaffer and Shapin 1985, Daston and Galison 2010), this panel will recast recent attention to the ‘apparatus’ of war – the collection of actors, objects, practices and discourses through which violent action is constituted (Gregory 2011, Bolton 2015). Focusing on the role of experimental practice in the evolution of the fields – spaces and objectives – of battle, the objective is to consider the consequences not only for means and mechanisms that become possible, but also permissible. The focus is therefore to examine the settings in which techniques and technologies are tested out and in time become standardized, such that the violence of war becomes rational, legal and ethical. We are especially interested in papers, both historical and contemporary in scope, related to (but not excluded to) the changing targets and targeting of killing, the intersection of the spaces of science and war (such as laboratories, testing grounds and military industries), the historical and recent geographies of cyberspace and cyberwarfare, the intersection between medicine and military practice, and the epistemological frameworks underpinning practices of science and warfare.

Please send abstracts (250 words) and/or questions to Katharine Kindervater ( and Nisha Shah ( by October 1, 2016

CFP AAG 2017: (Extra)territoriality: re-examining territorial control within and beyond state borders

Call For Papers
AAG 2017 Boston (April 5-8, 2017)

Session title: (Extra)territoriality: re-examining territorial control within and beyond state borders


Sara Hughes, UCLA

Josh Watkins, UC Davis
From deterritorialization to reterritorialization, the linkages between territory, sovereignty, borders, and mobilities are constantly being challenged, reproduced, and reinforced, both conceptually and practically. As territorial control and state power continue to be asserted beyond nation-states’ formal borders, and bordering practices manifest in increasingly complex ways and divergent spaces, it is essential political geographers continue to engage with, re-conceptualize, and empirically verify theories of territoriality–the attempt to control people, phenomena, and relationships by delimiting, asserting control over, and otherwise producing  geographic areas. The aim of this session is to critically examine territoriality within and beyond state borders, particularly how territorial control and the power to (re)produce space/place operates and is situated in diverse geopolitical contexts, across a variety of socio-spatial scales and temporalities. The session seeks to explore and shed light upon the factors, means, and outcomes of manifesting territorialities across space through a full range of theoretical and methodological approaches.

Papers may focus on, but are not limited to:

  • Borders, mobility, and territorial control problematizing the Westphalian imaginary and/or across a variety of socio-spatial scales and temporalities
  • Territoriality, power, and governance
  • Geopolitical representations and culture
  • Militarization, dispossession, settler colonialism, and the space of occupation
  • Blurred distinctions between spaces of war/peace, foreign/domestic, enemy/civilian
  • Geographies of law and law enforcement
  • Everyday dimensions of territorial policing, securitization, surveillance, and violence
  • Comparative studies or studies in under-researched geographic/historical areas

This session is sponsored by the Political Geography and Cultural Geography Speciality Groups.

Please send proposed titles and abstracts of no more than 200 words by email to Sara Hughes ( by Friday, 14 October 2016.