CFP AAG 2017: Territorial Articulations and Shifting Legal Geographies: Indigenous and Native Rights in the Americas

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

Session title: Territorial Articulations and Shifting Legal Geographies: Indigenous and Native Rights in the Americas

Session Organizers: Sarah Kelly-Richards (University of Arizona; shkelly@email.arizona.edu) and Joel Correia (University of Colorado; joel.correia@colorado.edu)

Discussant: Dr. Tom Perreault, Syracuse University

Sponsored by: Indigenous Peoples Specialty Group, Cultural and Political Ecology (CAPE) Specialty Group, Latin American Specialty Group

Please send a 250-word abstract to Sarah Kelly-Richards (shkelly@email.arizona.edu) and Joel Correia (joel.correia@colorado.edu) by October 15th. Accepted applications will be notified by October 22nd.

Throughout the Americas, indigenous peoples and their allies are engaging the law to defend their rights and territories. Scholars have shown that law can be used to revive, or create, new socio-spatial and economic orders that challenge historic relations between states and indigenous peoples (Postero 2007; Blaser 2010; Anthias and Radcliffe 2015). While other scholars argue that indigenous rights can paradoxically reinforce state authority and serve the purposes of expanding neoliberal spatial governance (Offen 2003; Wainwright and Bryan 2009; Bryan 2012). Nevertheless, the interpretation of law within formal legal spaces – such as courts, state institutions and multi-national nodes of the Inter-American Human Rights System – interacts with and is informed by material, discursive, and spatial articulations of rights outside of formal sites. While international treaties such as ILO Convention 169 are ratified and legally codified by many nation states in the Americas, in practice the enactment of rights varies greatly (Perreault, 2015). From the Willimapu of southern Chile to the territory of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in the Dakotas, indigenous peoples and their allies are engaging the law through diverse strategies. In this session, we seek to discuss and better understand relationships between territory, the law, and indigenous and native rights throughout the Americas in contribution to debates in legal geography, indigenous studies, and political ecology.

Indigenous and native rights embody connections across space, time, and scale. Across the Americas, these connections are producing new legal geographies, opening political possibilities, and shifting territorial claims and practices. Both legal change and territorial processes, such as the collective learning of indigenous rights, create these openings and correspondent spaces. These legal geographies and territorial claims are connected to different histories, and processes of recuperation. Roots of current indigenous conflicts are often traced to unresolved and contested land tenure histories that reach back decades to hundreds of years. Conflicts can reflect competing spatial ontologies between legal definition and territorial embodiment, yet these definitions and practices are mutually constitutive (Benson, 2012). How conflicts regarding indigenous rights are addressed within the legal sphere and articulated in territories throughout the Americans present important, timely questions. These include:

  • How are different indigenous communities and their allies engaging the law to advance indigenous rights and the material practice of those rights? More specifically, how are human and indigenous rights and natural resource laws being enacted and interpreted within diverse territories?
  • Conversely, how are territorial claims being interpreted in formal legal spaces from the local to the international level? In relation to what histories of dispossession and rights recognition
  • What legal technologies and mechanisms of cooptation are enrolled by state and private actors, and how are these efforts received or countered by indigenous peoples and their allies?
  • How does the law limit the possibility of achieving social and environmental justice in relation to human rights violations against indigenous peoples?
  • How does the law exclude or incorporate the spatial conceptions that indigenous peoples use or that are related to spirituality or cosmovision?
  • In what ways are legal precedents regarding territorial claims being set within different institutional arrangements of nation states and international legal mechanisms?
  • What new relationships are being forged between territory, property, and legal legitimacy?

We encourage submissions by applicants who are interested in preparing their conference papers for future publication.

Works Cited

Anthias, P. and Radcliffe, S. 2015. The ethno-environmental fix and its limits: Indigenous land titling and the production of not-quite-neoliberal natures in Bolivia. Geoforum 46: 257-269.

Benson, M. H. 2012. Mining sacred space: law’s enactment of competing ontologies in the American West. Environment and Planning A44, vol. 6: 1443-1458.

Blaser, M. 2010. Storytelling globalization from the Chaco and beyond. Durham: Duke University Press.

Bryan, J. 2012. Rethinking territory: Social justice and neoliberalism in Latin America’s territorial turn.Geography Compass 6, vol. 4: 215-226.

Offen, K. 2003. The territorial turn: Making black territories in Pacific Colombia. Journal of Latin American Geography 2, vol. 1: 43-73.

Perreault, T. 2015. Performing participation: Mining, power, and the limits of public consultation in Bolivia. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 20, vol. 3, 433-451.

Postero, N. 2007. Now we are citizens: Indigenous politics in Postmulticultural Bolivia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Wainwright, J. and Bryan, J. 2009. Cartography, territory, property: Postcolonial reflections on indigenous counter-mapping in Nicaragua and Belize. Cultural Geographies 16, vol. 2: 153-178.

CFP AAG 2017: Neo-Extractivism, Resource Nationalism, and ‘New’ Geographies of Resource Governance and Development

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

Session title: Neo-Extractivism, Resource Nationalism, and ‘New’ Geographies of Resource Governance and Development

Co-Organizers: Meredith DeBoom (University of Colorado-Boulder) and Emily Billo (Goucher College)

Sponsored by: Cultural and Political Ecology, Development Geographies, and Political Geography Specialty Groups

Deadline for Papers/Panel Proposals: October 13, 2017

Despite the political and economic challenges associated with commodity dependency, governments of many resource-rich states have placed a renewed emphasis on resource-based development over the past ten years. In countries such as Bolivia, South Africa, Ecuador, Namibia, Zambia, and Argentina, opposition and ruling political leaders have called for or implemented diverse reconfigurations of resource governance, resulting in new forms of “networked interactions of various state and non-state organizations and institutions operating at multiple sites and scales” (Himley, 2008: 435). These changes have often been accompanied by renewed rhetoric of national progress and resource nationalism, and also by political unrest rooted in environmental degradation, inequality, and violated property rights. This unrest has highlighted the injustices and violence often associated with state-led development and resource governance practices, including increased criminalization of environmental protests. Such developments at the “resource-state nexus” (Bridge, 2014) are of particular interest to geographers given the territorial fixity of resource deposits and the interconnections among land, resources, place-making, livelihoods, subject formation, and the state.

To date, however, research on the (re)turn to resource-based development has been hindered by regional and subfield-based research silos. These sessions aim to challenge this fragmentation by bringing Latin America-based studies of neo-extractivism (Gudynas, 2012; Burchardt and Dietz, 2014), resource-based struggles (Bebbington and Bury, 2013), and resource imaginaries (Coronil, 1997; Perreault and Valdivia, 2010) into conversation with research on petro-developmentalism (Ovadia, 2016), resource nationalism (Childs, 2015), and resource sovereignty in Africa (Emel et al., 2011), as well as research on resource governance in other regions.

Through a paper session and panel discussion, we aim to connect scholarship on resource governance across a variety of regions and subfields, including political ecology, political geography, economic geography, development geography, legal geographies, and resource geographies. Our goal is to better understand the commonalities and divergences across shifting resource governance regimes and their implications for development and social and environmental justice at multiple scales.

1) Paper session: we invite papers that engage with resource governance in and across a variety of contexts. Both empirical and theoretical proposals are welcome. Possible topics might include, but are not limited to:

  • Continuities and divergences in resource governance under neoliberal and post-neoliberal/post-Washington Consensus extraction regimes
  • Implications of new resource governance schemes for development challenges associated with commodity dependency (e.g., the resource curse)
  • State-society relations and resource-based development
  • Resource imaginaries, nationalism, place-making, and state-making
  • Roles of foreign investment in domestic resource politics
  • Resource extraction and the developmental or neo-developmental state
  • Neo-extractivism and indigenous politics
  • Scale in resource politics and associated scalar tensions
  • Issues of enclosure, dispossession, property rights, and exclusion
  • Criminalization of environmental protests
  • Identity, subject formation, and social movements
  • Sovereignty, territory, states, and extractive industries
  • Methodological or fieldwork issues associated with researching resource governance

2) Roundtable/panel discussion: we invite expressions of interest by panelists who might speak to broader theoretical debates or to the practicalities of conducting research on resource governance.

Submissions:

Presenters interested in participating in the paper session are asked to submit a paper title and an abstract of no more than 250 words to the organizers by October 13, 2017.

Presenters interested in participating in the panel discussion are asked to submit a brief description of 100-200 words overviewing the topics and themes about which they would like to speak by October 13, 2017.

Please direct submissions and questions to Emily Billo (emily.billo@goucher.edu) and Meredith DeBoom (meredith.deboom@colorado.edu).

Relevant Literature

Bebbington, A. and J. Bury (Eds.). 2013. Subterranean Struggles: New Dynamics of Mining, Oil, and Gas in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press. 

Bridge, G. 2014. Resource Geographies II: The Resource-State Nexus. Progress in Human Geography 38(1), 118-130.

Burchardt, H-J. and K. Dietz. 2014. (Neo-)extractivism: A New Challenge for Development Theory from Latin America. Third World Quarterly 35(3): 468-486.

Childs, J. 2016. Geography and Resource Nationalism: A Critical Review and Reframing. The Extractive Industries and Society 3: 539-546.

Childs, J. and J. Hearn. 2016. ‘New’ Nations: Resource-Based Development Imaginaries in Ghana and Ecuador. Third World Quarterly. DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2016.1176859.

Coronil, F. 1997. The Magical State: Nature, Money, and Modernity in Venezuela. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Emel, J., M. Huber, and M. Makene. 2011. Extracting Sovereignty: Capital, Territory, and Gold Mining in Tanzania. Political Geography 35: 35-51.

Gudynas, E. 2012. Estado Compensador y Nuevos Extractivismos: Las Ambivalencias del Progresismo Sudamericano. Nueva Sociedad 237: 128-146.

Himley, M. 2008. Geographies of Environmental Governance: The Nexus of Nature and Neoliberalism. Geography Compass 2: 433-451.

Ovadia, J.S. 2016. The Petro-Developmental State in Africa: Making Oil Work in Angola, Nigeria and the Gulf of Guinea.

Perreault, T. and G. Valdivia. 2010. Hydrocarbons, Popular Protest and National Imaginaries: Ecuador and Bolivia in Comparative Context. Geoforum 41(5): 689-699.

Rosales, A. 2013. Going Underground: The Political Economy of the ‘Left Turn’ in South America. Third World Quarterly 38(8): 1443-1457.

Veltmeyer, H. and J. Petras (Eds.) 2014. The New Extractivism: A Post-Neoliberal Development Model or Imperialism of the Twenty-First Century? Zed Books.

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 (lynn.staeheli@durham.ac.uk) or Sandy Marshall (djmarshall@email.arizona.edu) 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 Emily.gilbert@utoronto.ca

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

Organizers

Coleman Allums, University of Georgia

Scott Markley, University of Gerogia

Description

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 (coleman.allums@uga.edu) and Scott Markley (scott.markley@uga.edu) 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, m.locret-collet.1@bham.ac.uk

2 – Department of Geography, University of Victoria, springer@uvic.ca

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 m.locret-collet.1@bham.ac.uk and springer@uvic.ca 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 2016http://www.aag.org/cs/http://www.aag.org/cs/annualmeeting/how_to_submit_an_abstract

References

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. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/reclus/onvegetarianism.html.

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 (olivier.walther@rutgers.edu) and Marie Trémolières (marie.tremolieres@oecd.org) 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

Organizers

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 (jlrice@uga.edu) 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: aag.pgsg@gmail.com

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: aag.pgsg@gmail.com

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 (nkoch@maxwell.syr.edu), Kenneth Madsen (madsen.34@osu.edu)

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

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 (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/global-governance/) 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 j.dittmer@ucl.ac.uk and Anna Feigenbaum afeigenbaum@bournemouth.ac.uk