CfP: Sorting Youth: Categorization of and Contestation by Children and Teenagers

Session Title: Sorting Youth: Categorization of and Contestation by Children and Teenagers

Organizers: Leanne Purdum (University of Georgia) and Gloria Howerton (University of Georgia)

With this AAG paper session we seek to bring together critical analyses pertaining to the categorization and sorting of children and teenagers in contemporary society, as well as youth resistance to these processes. We encourage participation from scholars who would not necessarily categorize their work as being within the realm of children’s geographies, but whose work centers youth in their analysis.

We are interested in contributions including (but not limited to) topics such as:

  • DACA
  • Law and policies impacting youth
  • School-to-prison pipeline
  • School segregation
  • Youth migration
  • Undocumented Youth
  • Categorization and sorting of children
  • Racialization and gendering of youth
  • Youth activism and organizing/political spaces of youth
  • Youth subjectivities
  • Uneven geographies of youth
  • Military recruitment tactics
  • Human rights and youth

Framing of this session:

Until the late 1960s, when William Bunge identified children as our largest minority and argued that they must be brought into geographical studies, human geography focused nearly exclusively on adults, particularly white males (James 1990). While still underdeveloped, Bunge’s work on the spatial oppression of urban youth began a significant increase in scholarship on children’s geographies. Skelton (2013; 2010) recently called upon geographers to treat seriously the political involvements of young people, and previously admonished geographers for treating children and young adults as future people or human becomings. We draw inspiration from Martin (2011), who brings the concept of the “geopolitics of vulnerability” to her analysis of family detention in the US, as a way to bridge the often separated areas of immigration politics and children’s rights. This work sheds light on the complex ways in which youth are categorized, sorted, and framed. With this session, we seek to bring together current research that examines a wide variety of scales to think through the spaces, policies, movements, systems, etc. that constrain, sort, categorize, or are contested by youth.

If interested, submit a 250 word abstract to either Gloria Howerton (gjhowert@uga.edu) or Leanne Purdum (leannekp@uga.edu) by October 13, 2017.

Works Cited

James, S. 1990. Is there a “place” for children in geography? Area. 22(3): 278-283.

Martin, Lauren L. 2011. “‘The geopolitics of vulnerability: children’s legal subjectivity, immigrant family detention and US immigration law and enforcement policy.” Gender, Place and Culture 18 4: 477-498.

Skelton, T. 2010. Taking young people as political actors seriously: Opening the borders of political geography. Area. 42(2): 145-151.

Skelton, T. 2013. Young people, children, politics, and space: A decade of youthful political geography scholarship: 2003-13. Space and Polity. 17(1): 123-136.

CfP: Surplus Lives, Race, and Artificial Intelligence

AAG Annual Meeting Call for Papers 2018: New Orleans 

Surplus Lives, Race, and Artificial Intelligence

Session organizers

Kate Hall, Dartmouth College, katharine.h.kindervater@dartmouth.edu

Ian Shaw, University of Glasgow, ian.shaw.2@glasgow.ac.uk

Anxieties over artificial intelligence (AI), robots, and systems of automated governance are well documented. The contemporary collision between AI and human labor is generating both old and new problematics for the worlds in which we dwell. The contradictions of capitalist technics and what Marx called “species being” are well-worn ideas. But we might ask how new geographies of poverty, biopolitics, and necropolitics are being manifest by AI. Moreover, beneath concerns with “robots taking our jobs,” big data, or mass algorithmic surveillance, it’s vital to ask how artificial intelligences are entrenching, policing, and exacerbating pre-existing social inequalities. For example, in Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness (2015), Simone Browne analyses the historical conditions of surveilling blackness, thereby situating surveillance within transatlantic slavery and its brutal lines of descent. This demonstrates the politico-ethical importance of fusing capitalist technics with established indignities and injustices. It further points to the importance of interrogating the epistemological frameworks supporting AI and how the human and surplus lives are constructed. That is not to denounce AI as inherently dystopian (a reading that bulldozes difference)-but to always question its geographic materialization or worlding with state and corporate power. In this session, we aim to do just that: discuss the links between surplus populations, inequality, race, and AI. 

If you are interested in taking part in this session, please contact Kate and Ian with an abstract of no more than 250 words by Friday 20th October 2018 (earlier the better!). We will then get back to you by Monday 23 October with a decision.

Disrupting the Frontier/Homeland Binary: Practices of Local-Scale and Indigenous Development

Disrupting the Frontier/Homeland Binary: Practices of Local-Scale and Indigenous Development

CALL FOR PAPERS
American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting
New Orleans, April 10-14, 2018

Organizers: Mia Bennett (UCLA/University of Vienna) and Ingrid A. Medby (Oxford Brookes University)

In remote, ecologically vulnerable, and/or sparsely populated regions such as the Arctic and the Amazon, global capital and its associated mega-projects are often seen as synonymous with unsustainable, unrelenting growth. In contrast, local initiatives, particularly if directed by Indigenous populations, are often viewed as preferable: “If sustainable development is ever going to be achieved, it needs to begin with citizens at the grassroots level, whereby local success can be translated into national achievements” (Roseland 2012, xviii).

However, an uncritical preference for locally scaled policies and actions may at times be misguided, or at least in need of added nuance. A good deal of geographers and political ecologists assume that while political and economic processes take place at national and global scales, cultural and ecological processes happen at the local scale (Brown and Purcell, 2005). Yet, political and economic processes can and do arise from the local scale too, often running up against global-scale movements that seek, for instance, to conserve the environment. The Arctic offers one example, where entrepreneurial Indigenous groups, like Arctic Slope Regional Corporation in Alaska, champion offshore oil and gas, while Greenpeace continues its campaign to “Save the Arctic.” Local actors – many of them Indigenous – thus often seek the right to development (Gibbs, 2005; Salomon and Sengupta, 2003), at odds with outsiders’ expectations of specific, often romanticized, practices and performativities of both “Indigeneity” and local-scale identities. When Indigenous and local actors are in the race for global capital to fund industrial development on their land, this complicates any supposed binary between homeland and frontier, between passive dwelling and active usage. In a time when decolonizing geographical knowledges has been high on the agenda, questioning assumptions about so-called “rootedness” and “stewardship”, and about what kind of “development” is considered legitimate in accordance with assumed role-enactments, is needed.

This session seeks to explore Indigeneity in the 21st century, especially in so-called “frontier” regions: How it is expected to be performed, how it actually plays out in practice, and not least, how expectations are challenged and disrupted. Recognizing that there is no single Indigenous trajectory, let alone a homogenous “Fourth World,” we seek to stimulate cross-regional dialogues that bring different experiences to bear on one another.

While far from an exhaustive list, possible topics include:

  • Geographies of Indigeneity
  • Expectations and performances of Indigeneity
  • Tribal capitalism, Indigenous enterprise development, and Indigenous political economies
  • Practices and policies of Indigenous corporations
  • Consequences of land claims agreements on development
  • Indigenous resistance to and/or accommodation of the state and capital
  • Debates over the “right to development” in regions often perceived as “frontiers”
  • Traditional Ecological Knowledges (TEK), and particularly how they might be employed in and/or deployed against development

Please send abstracts of no more than 250 words, along with your institutional affiliation and contact details, to Mia Bennett (mbennett7@ucla.edu) and Ingrid A. Medby (imedby@brookes.ac.uk) by October 17, 2017We will notify accepted applicants by October 21, 2017Successful participants will need to pay the registration fee and submit their abstracts online at the AAG website before October 25, 2017.

References

Brown, J. C., & Purcell, M. (2005). There’s nothing inherent about scale: political ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum36(5), 607-624.

Gibbs, M. (2005). The right to development and indigenous peoples: Lessons from New Zealand. World Development33(8), 1365-1378.

Roseland, M. (2012). Toward sustainable communities: Solutions for citizens and their governments (Vol. 6). Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Salomon, M. E., & Sengupta, A. (2003). The right to development: Obligations of states and the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. London: Minority Rights Group International.

CfP: New Perspectives on Mediterranean Integration

CFP AAG 2018 New Orleans

New Perspectives on Mediterranean Integration

Organizers: William Kutz (University of Manchester), Camilla Hawthorne (UC Berkeley), Xavier Ferrer-Gallardo (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)

 

The ongoing effects of the Eurozone crisis and political upheavals since the Arab Spring have significantly altered the established coordinates of Mediterranean space and society. Geographers have sought to explain these phenomena through the changing forms of state borders and territoriality, the spatial re-divisions capital and class, and the contested spaces of migration, citizenship, and belonging. However, much of this research remains largely fragmented along predominant sub-disciplinary concerns, territorial scales, and regional foci.

This multi-session CFP aims to bring together work on Mediterranean integration – in the broadest sense – as a means to traverse these divisions and to place emerging debates into greater conversation with each other.  Our goal is to explore alternative ways to imagine the geographies of Mediterranean sociability and exchange as a means to develop new avenues for future research in the region.

The following themes are proposed as starting points for paper presentations:

  • Mediterranean market power (Escribano, 2006; Damro, 2012)
  • The constitutive power of outsiders (Browning & Christou, 2010; Cassarino, 2014)
  • Geo-economics and internationalization (Smith, 2015; Sellar et al., 2017)
  • New/unusual regional formations (Celata & Coletti, 2015; Ferrer-Gallardo & Kramsch, 2016)
  • Culture and cosmopolitanism (Dietz, 2004; Moisio, et al., 2012; Giglioli, 2017)
  • The Black Mediterranean (Hawthorne, 2017; Danewid, 2017)
  • Citizenship, belonging, subalterity (Pace, 2005; Sidaway, 2012)
  • Geopolitical fantasies (Bialasiewicz, et al., 2013; Scott, et al., 2017)
  • Alternative paths, edges, and nodes (Giaccaria & Minca, 2011; Casas-Cortes, et al., 2013)
  • Conflict and diplomacy (Dittmer & McConnell, 2015; Jones & Clark, 2015)
  • Comparative Mediterraneanisms (Mansour, 2001; Bromberger, 2007; Whitehead, 2015)

Do not hesitate to get in touch to see if you have an idea that goes beyond the specified themes and that you would like to include with the other topics.

Please email abstracts (250 words) to William Kutz (william.kutz@manchester.ac.uk) by 15 October. Notifications will be sent by 20 October. Participants will need to register and submit their abstracts on the conference website by the 25 October deadline.

 

References

Bialasiewicz, L., Giaccaria, P., Jones, A. and Minca, C., 2013. Re-scaling ‘EU’rope: EU macro-regional fantasies in the Mediterranean. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(1), pp.59-76.

Bromberger, C., 2007. Bridge, wall, mirror; coexistence and confrontations in the Mediterranean world. History and Anthropology, 18(3), pp.291-307.

Browning, C.S. and Christou, G., 2010. The constitutive power of outsiders: The European neighbourhood policy and the eastern dimension. Political Geography, 29(2), pp.109-118.

Cassarino, J.P., 2014. Channelled policy transfers: EU-Tunisia interactions on migration matters. European Journal of Migration and Law, 16(1), pp.97-123.

Casas-Cortes, M., Cobarrubias, S. and Pickles, J., 2013. Re-bordering the neighbourhood: Europe’s emerging geographies of non-accession integration. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(1), pp.37-58.

Celata, F. and Coletti, R., 2015. Neighbourhood Policy and the Construction of the European External Borders. Springer International Publishing.

Danewid, I., 2017. White innocence in the Black Mediterranean: hospitality and the erasure of history. Third World Quarterly, pp.1-16.

Dietz, G., 2004. Frontier hybridisation or culture clash? Transnational migrant communities and sub-national identity politics in Andalusia, Spain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(6), pp.1087-1112.

Dittmer, J. and McConnell, F. eds., 2015. Diplomatic cultures and international politics: translations, spaces and alternatives. Routledge.

Ferrer‐Gallardo, X. and Kramsch, O.T., 2016. Revisiting Al‐Idrissi: The Eu and the (Euro) Mediterranean Archipelago Frontier. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 107(2), pp.162-176.

Giaccaria, P. and Minca, C., 2011. The Mediterranean alternative. Progress in Human Geography, 35(3), pp.345-365.

Giglioli, I., 2017. Producing Sicily as Europe: Migration, Colonialism and the Making of the Mediterranean Border between Italy and Tunisia. Geopolitics, 22(2), pp.407-428.

Hawthorne, C., 2017. In Search of Black Italia: Notes on race, belonging, and activism in the black Mediterranean. Transition, 123(1), pp.152-174.

Jones, A. and Clark, J., 2015. Mundane diplomacies for the practice of European geopolitics. Geoforum, 62, pp.1-12.

Mansour, M.E., 2001. Maghribis in the Mashriq during the modern period: Representations of the Other within the world of Islam. The Journal of North African Studies, 6(1), pp.81-104.

Moisio, S., Bachmann, V., Bialasiewicz, L., dell’Agnese, E., Dittmer, J. and Mamadouh, V., 2013. Mapping the political geographies of Europeanization: National discourses, external perceptions and the question of popular culture. Progress in Human Geography, 37(6), pp.737-761.

Pace, M., 2005. The politics of regional identity: meddling with the Mediterranean. Routledge.

Scott, J.W., Brambilla, C., Celata, F., Coletti, R., Bürkner, H.J., Ferrer-Gallardo, X. and Gabrielli, L., 2017. Between crises and borders: Interventions on Mediterranean Neighbourhood and the salience of spatial imaginaries. Political Geography, pp.1-11.

Sidaway, J.D., 2012. Subaltern geopolitics: Libya in the mirror of Europe. The Geographical Journal, 178(4), pp.296-301.

Sellar, C., Lan, T. and Poli, U., 2017. The Geoeconomics/Politics of Italy’s Investment Promotion Community. Geopolitics, pp.1-28.

Smith, A., 2015. Macro‐regional integration, the frontiers of capital and the externalisation of economic governance. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40(4), pp.507-522.

Whitehead, L., 2015. Maghreb, European neighbour, or Barbary Coast: constructivism in North Africa. The Journal of North African Studies, 20(5), pp.691-701.

2nd CfP: Geopolitical Ecologies: Nature, States, and Governance

 

Geopolitical Ecologies: Nature, States, and Governance

Organizers: Clare Beer (UCLA) & Sara Hughes (Mount Holyoke College)
Discussant: Leila Harris (UBC)

Sponsored by the Political Geography Specialty Group, Cultural and Political Ecology (CAPE) Specialty Group, Development Geographies Specialty Group, & Middle East and North Africa Specialty Group

Nature plays a seminal role in the production of political space, yet political geographers have been slow to theorize the non-human world in relation to core disciplinary concepts like borders, power, sovereignty, the state, and territory/territoriality (Ramutsindela, 2017; Robbins, 2008). As a wider consequence, they have overlooked important connections between nature and political society. Political ecologists, meanwhile, mine these connections through a chains of explanation methodology linking ecological change to uneven relations of social, economic, and political power. Despite their emphasis on politics, political ecologists have been less explicit about the state itself and why it matters to the non-human world (Robertson, 2015).

This session premises that political geographers excel where political ecologists fall short and vice versa (Robbins, 2003), leaving obvious room for each to draw important insights from the other. We argue that their cross-pollination is not only possible but would produce novel insights into processes of modern statecraft and global environmental change. For political geographers, deeper engagement with nature would expand the kinds of spaces that pertain to the geopolitical register and address how the sovereign state system could better manage global-scale environmental crises. For political ecologists, an encounter with state and/or political-geographic theory would sharpen explanations of environmental problems and render more nuanced pictures of the environmental state. This session builds on recent conversations between and within these subfields (Dalby, 2013; Harris, 2012; Parenti, 2015), and emerging research on the political geography of the environment (Benjaminsen et al., 2017) and ‘political ecologies of the state (Harris, 2017), to open new space for collaboration.

We mobilize Bigger and Neimarks (2017) geopolitical ecology framework to drive our discussion, but encourage a wider reading of geopolitics beyond the military-industrial. In particular, we seek to address the relationship between, on the one hand, environmental governance, sustainability, and climate change policy, and, on the other, geostrategy and statecraft. We are interested in how and why states manage their territorial environments to strategic effect, and the ways in which the material realities of nature complicate or subvert such actions.

Papers may address any number of topics related to geopolitical ecologies, including but not limited to:

  • Theoretical, empirical, and/or methodological interventions that critically (re)assess the nature-state relationship
  • Ecological legibility and the state
  • Eco-state restructuring
  • The role of non-human actors in geopolitical processes (cf. Sundberg, 2011)
  • Climate change adaptation/mitigation and statecraft (cf. Camargo & Ojeda, 2017)
  • New hegemonies of green political-economic power
  • Green developmentalism and the state
  • War/violence and biodiversity/resource conservation
  • Settler-colonial environmentalisms

Interested applicants should send abstracts of no more than 250 words to Sara Hughes (snhughes@mtholyoke.edu) and Clare Beer (clarebeer@ucla.edu) by October 16th. Accepted applicants will be notified by October 23rd. *Note: to enhance the quality of discussion, session participants must submit brief conference papers (approx. 10 pp.) to the session organizers by March 12, 2018.

References

Benjaminsen, T. A., Buhaug, H., McConnell, F., Sharp, J., & Steinberg, P. E. (2017). Political Geography and the environment. Political Geography, 56, A1-A2.
Bigger, P., & Neimark, B. D. (2017). Weaponizing nature: The geopolitical ecology of the U.S. Navy’s biofuel program. Political Geography, 60, 13-22
Camargo, A., & Ojeda, D. (2017). Ambivalent desires: State formation and dispossession in the face of climate crisis. Political Geography, 60, 57-65.
Dalby, S. (2013). The geopolitics of climate change. Political Geography, 37, 38-47.
Harris, L. M. (2012). State as socionatural effect: Variable and emergent geographies of the state in southeastern Turkey. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 32(1), 25-39.
Harris, L. M. (2017). Political ecologies of the state: Recent interventions and questions going forward. Political Geography, 58, 90-92.
Parenti, C. (2015). The 2013 ANTIPODE AAG lecture: The environment making state: Territory, nature, and value. Antipode, 47(4), 829-848.
Ramutsindela, M. (2017). Greening Africa’s borderlands: The symbiotic politics of land and borders in peace parks. Political Geography, 56, 106-113.
Robbins, P. (2003). Political ecology in political geography. Political Geography, 22, 641-645.
Robbins, P. (2008). The state in political ecology: A postcard to political geography from the field. In K. R. Cox, M. Low, & J. Robinson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political geography (pp. 205-218). Los Angeles; London; New Delhi; Singapore: SAGE Publications.
Robertson, M. (2015). Environmental governance: Political ecology and the state. In T. Perreault, G. Bridge, & J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of political ecology (pp. 457-466). London; New York: Routledge.
Sundberg, J. (2011). Diabolic caminos in the desert and cat fights on the r­o: A posthumanist political ecology of boundary enforcement in the United States-Mexico borderlands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(2), 318-336.

CfP: Pedagogies of Race and Racializatoin

Pedagogies of Race and Racialization

AAG 2018 Panel

Organizers:

Brian Jordan Jefferson, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

Jennifer Tucker, University of New Mexico

Our age of resurgent white supremacy requires critical pedagogies of race and racialization. As educators, we are positioned to shape the horizon of the politically possible through engaging students. Yet teaching race is tricky. Miseducation in US K-12 classrooms is commonplace, and some students arrive without basic historical knowledge of racial capitalism, forged in the crucible of slavery and theft of Native lands, and persistent in new forms today. The complexity of racialization requires moving beyond the common binary of black and white to include the diverse experiences of other racialized groups, while still recognizing anti-blackness and settler colonialism as core dynamics of US exceptionalism. There are also pragmatic challenges. Students arrive with vastly different lived experiences of race and racialization. White students, or others with racial privilege, may resist learning about whiteness, or other means of turning toward practices of power and privilege. Educators can expect microagressions in the classroom, even as institutional support to gain competency in navigating racially diverse classrooms is often inadequate. Instructors of color and women may experience more push back when teaching critical perspectives on race than white educators and men.

Despite the challenges, teaching race provides a vital frame for students to see the linkages between critical theoretical frameworks–adequate to the complexity of the concrete–and effective, justice oriented action, that is, to engage with praxis. By rooting race and racialization in specific spaces, with deep histories, geography offers an important set of theoretical resources to help students grasp the processes, stakes and political possibilities of our current moment. Indeed, teaching about racialized space–borders, prisons, sacrifice zones, immigrant detention camps, the plantation, suburban enclaves, ghettos, and slums, to name a few—provides important resources to ground theory and engage students.

This panel will discuss coping devices, knowledge production politics, pedagogical practices, and possible forms of academic resistance. We will also discuss real-world instances in which academic freedom was deprived, and how these instances affect teaching race in geography.

If interested, please send a brief description of your proposed contribution to this panel by October 15 to Brian and Jennifer at bjjeffer@illinois.edu and jennifertucker@unm.edu

CfP: Network analysis and geography

CFP: Network analysis and geography

Association of American Geographers Conference, New Orleans, USA, 10-14 April 2018

 

Walter J. Nicholls                                   Justus Uitermark                                  Michiel van Meeteren

Department of Urban Planning          Department of Sociology                    Cosmopolis, Department of Geography

and Public Policy

University of California, Irvine           University of Amsterdam                    Vrije Universiteit Brusse

wnicholl@uci.edu                                  justusuitermark@hotmail.com          michiel.van.meeteren@vub.be

 

Geographers have conceived of networks as a foundational spatial concept (e.g. Jessop et al 2008; Leitner et al 2008). In spite of this recognition, the adoption of network analysis within contemporary geography has been varied across geographical subdisciplines. This session departs from the conviction that network analysis heralds considerable promise to develop theoretical notions as well as methods that allow us to better understand how spaces are constituted and contested. This session therefore explores the potentials and limitations of network analysis for human geography.

Demonstrating the relevance of networks as theoretical constructs, scholars like Michael Mann (1986) and Manuel Castells (1996, 2009) have shown how networks of various kinds are constitutive of social power. Networks of people, corporations, and government officials agglomerate in specific locations, with some agglomerations concentrating more resources and power than others.

Network analysis further provides a rich array of techniques and methods that can capture relations in places and across space. Despite the early adoption of network-analytical techniques by both physical and human geographers during the heyday of the spatial science era (e.g. Haggett and Chorley, 1969), contemporary geographers only make limited use of such technological affordances, with notable exceptions of research on city networks (e.g. Taylor and Derudder, 2016) and digital geographies (Crampton et al. 2013).  The growing availability of digital data and the development of advanced techniques for network analysis provide many new opportunities for geography while also raising new issues with respect to research ethics and data validity.

Lastly, network analysis can facilitate conversation across disciplines and subdisciplines. Network analysis provides theoretical notions and techniques that can be used to capture phenomena ranging from social movements and corporate networks to the diffusion of innovation or road infrastructures. Because it provides a common vocabulary, network analysis has the potential to highlight patterns and mechanisms that operate across different fields. While the reduction of complex social relations to a standardized vocabulary offers exciting opportunities, the imposition of network categories can also result in theoretical and political blinders.

The session aims to encourage and inspire scholars to theoretically, methodologically, and empirically explore the potentials and limitations of network analysis for geography. We invite papers from various geographical specializations (e.g. economic, political, social, cultural, transportation, physical and environmental geography) to compare network approaches and build a more comprehensive and dynamic theory of networked geographies.

We particularly welcome contributions that focus on:

–        networks as building blocks of place, territory, scale

–        networks and power

–        the geographical unevenness of network structures

–        the sources of cooperation and conflict within networks

–        the interconnection of networks across domains (e.g. economic, political, environmental and cultural)

–        digital data

–        qualitative and quantitative methods to measure networked geographies

Please submit abstracts of no more than 250 words, names, affiliations and contact information to justusuitermark@hotmail.com, wnicholl@uci.edu and michiel.van.meeteren@vub.be by October 14, 2017 at the latest.

CfP: Region as Method

Region as Method

This is a joint plenary session from various specialty groups. scholars from all regional and thematic foci are invited:

Cold War era area studies and traditional regional geography were presented by their proponents as integrative fields – approaches to coalesce macro and micro level analyses of geo-strategic motives, social processes, and political and economic dynamics. In the 1990s, a reiteration of regional geography under the label of New Regionalism (Storper 1997) explored economic processes at the local level, yet maintaining a keen attention to multilevel and comparative sociopolitical dimensions. Since then, the predominance of thematic foci in the discipline – such as political geography writ large, and strands of economic geography such as global value chains and production networks created topical, theoretical, and in some cases methodological division between state-centered analyses in political geography and firms-centered analyses in economic geography. Notwithstanding the claims of geoeconomics to account for the role of the market in larger political decisions, and GVC and GPN roles of the state in governance, it is difficult to account for the liminal spaces in which firms and states actually interact, and, consequently, for the ways in which the increasingly transnational life of firms influences changes in the structure of states.

This session invites reflections on how regional analyses may be able to carry forward more nuanced analyses of the processes tying together firms and states. These include, but are not limited to, new forms of sovereignty and territoriality aimed at regulating but also supporting firms within as well as without borders.

  • We welcome regionally focused contributions from economic, political, and cultural geographers that include, but are not limited to:
  • Theoretical reflections on the notion of region within geo-economic imaginaries that privilege metaphors of flows over viewing states as static frames;
  • The interactions between states sponsored investment promotion practices and firms’ locational choices;
  • Commercial and business diplomacy;
  • Questioning of the organizational boundaries between states and firms through public-private partnerships and other means;
  • Theoretical discussions of the role of states in value chains and production networks, as well as the role of firms in geo-economics;
  • Empirical studies of how transnational firms (both large multinationals and small transnational or diaspora businesses), governments, and civil societies communicate their reciprocal interests and mediate conflicts;

Depending on the quality of the papers and inclinations of the participants we will submit a special journal issue proposal. Accordingly, please plan to submit a paper at an advanced draft level.

Please send your abstracts to Christian Sellar csellar@olemiss.edu or Jeremy Tasch jtasch@towson.edu

CfP: Anxious/Desiring Geographies

Call for Papers: “Anxious/Desiring geographies.”
Organizers: Jeremy W. Crampton (Kentucky, USA), Nick Robinson (RHUL, UK), Mikko Joronen (Tampere, Finland)

At this political moment we seem beset by anxieties from every direction. Automation is identified as an existential threat to jobs. Vulnerabilities from political violence increase anxieties of the subaltern. Climate change and the inauguration of the Anthropocene threaten our wellbeing. Nast (2017) credits the financial crisis with being “psychically traumatic.”
At least since Gregory’s identification of the inadequacy of representation, which he dubbed “cartographic anxiety” (Gregory, 1994), geographers have meaningfully contributed to understandings of the affective politics of anxiety. Attention has been paid to a geopolitics of fear that is experienced on both an everyday and global level (Pain and Smith, 2008), and to sexual desires and identities (Bell and Valentine, 1995). Brown and Knopp (2016) have identified a biopolitics of the state’s anxieties in the governance of the gay bar.
In this session we seek papers that deepen our geographical understandings of anxiety, desire and/or the possible relationship(s) between them.
Is anxiety a mental disease that can be diagnosed and treated (APA, 2013), founded on lack, or can it be deployed more positively (Robbins and Moore, 2012)? Is anxiety the only affect that does not deceive (Lacan, 2014)? What is the relation between anxiety, desire and place? What might a politics of locationally affective resistance look like (Griffiths, 2017)? How is desire productive of spaces? How do anxiety and desire circulate and relate to subjectivities and the material body? Are there particular places and spaces that are invested in anxiety or desire, and what is the lived experience there?

Topics that address these questions include but are not limited to:
• Places of anxiety and desire
• Surveillance anxiety (eg., geosurveillance, automated facial recognition)
• Automation anxiety and desires
• The affective politics of policing
• Living in code/space & the smart city and becoming the data subject
• Everyday anxieties
• The biopolitics of anxiety and desire
• The anxious/desiring/desired body
• Affective resistances
• Governing through desire
• Anxieties from political violence
• Affective relations of anxiety/desire to pain, grief, worry or fear

Please send a title and abstract of 250 words to jcrampton@uky.edu, nicholas.Robinson.2014@live.rhul.ac.uk, and Mikko Joronen mikko.joronen@uta.fi by October 15th.

References

American Psychiatric Association. 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

Bell, D. and Valentine, G. Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexualities. London: Routledge.

Brown, M. & L. Knopp. 2016. Sex, drink, and state anxieties: governance through the gay bar. Social & Cultural Geography, 17, pp. 335-358.

Gregory, D. 1994. Geographical Imaginations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Griffiths, M. (2017) Hope in Hebron: The political affects of activism in a strangled city. Antipode, 49, 617-635.

Lacan, J. 2014. Anxiety. Seminar Book X. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Nast, H. J. (2017) Into the arms of dolls: Japan’s declining fertility rates, the 1990s financial crisis and the (maternal) comforts of the posthuman. Social & Cultural Geography, 18, 758-785.

Pain, R. and Smith, S. (Eds) 2008. Fear: Critical Geopolitics and Everyday Life. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Robbins, P. and Moore, S.A. 2012. Ecological anxiety disorder: diagnosing the politics of the Anthropocene. cultural geographies, 20(1) 3–19.

Sioh, M. 2014. A small narrow space: postcolonial territorialization and the libidinal economy. In P. Kingsbury and S. Pile (Eds), Psychoanalytic Geographies. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.

CfP: Geographies of Anarchist Praxes

CALL FOR PAPERS

Geographies of Anarchist Praxes

Organizers

Federico Ferretti           University College Dublin, Ireland.

Farhang Rouhani           University of Mary Washington, USA.

Simon Springer             University of Victoria, Canada.

Richard J. White            Sheffield Hallam University, UK.

 

A misanthrope might compare the vices of our European society to a hidden evil that gnaws at the individual from within, whereas the vices of American society appear outwardly in all of their hideous brutality. The most violent hatred separates factions and races: the slavery advocate abhors the abolitionist, the white loathes the Negro, the native detests the foreigner, the wealthy planter disdains the small landowner, and rivalry of interests creates an insurmountable barrier of mistrust even between related families.

Elisee Reclus, (1885) A Voyage to New Orleans.

An anarchist praxis within geography continues to inspire and invite new imaginaries and praxis to flourish within the discipline.  In recent years, anarchist geographers have revitalised approaches toward radical learning spaces (Rouhani, 2017, Springer et al, 2016); historical geographies (Ferretti 2015; Springer 2016), neoliberalism (Springer 2011), post-statist geographies (Barrera and Ince, 2016), practices of freedom (White et al, 2016); postcoloniality/decoloniality (Barker and Pickerill 2012), theories of resistance (Souza et.al 2016); urbanism (Souza 2014), nonhuman animal oppression (White, 2017) and a reassessment of our discipline’s radical potential (Springer 2014, 2016), among others. While wishing to see these anarchist geographies unfold still further, at this point in time – and with the AAG conference being held in New Orleans – we feel it is particularly relevant and important to invite papers that engage directly with the following three areas:

  1. Anarchist Geographies and Anti-racism/ intersectionality.

The topics of anti-racist and anti-slavery struggles are part of the anarchist tradition since Reclus’s sojourn in Louisiana from 1853 to 1855 and his “anarchist abolitionism”, a fight that the anarchist geographer pursued all his life long. Today, the issues on anti-racism, intersectionality and the claims of all marginalised and “racialized” communities, often linked to anti-fascism and anti-sexism stances, are more and more urgent all over the world, as recently shown by the case of Afro-American communities. Any paper discussing past, present and future anarchist engagements on these topics is welcome.

  1. Anarchist Geographies and Colonialism, postcolonialism, and decolonization

Some lasting misunderstandings concern the relations between anarchism and decolonialism. While focusing on the intersection of all forms of oppression (state, capital, churches, armies, authorities …) anarchism rarely flagged anti-colonialism or postcolonialism as its main feature. Yet, this did not impede that anarchist were historically among the most radical anti-colonialist from the time of early anarchist geographers, nor that anarchist thinking is devoid of elements which can nourish to-day debates on “de-colonising geography”. For instance, the anarchist refusal of a political avant-garde anticipated recent political and epistemological claims from decolonial scholars, put in practice by movements of indigenous resistance such as the Zapatistas. Contributions on anarchism and anti-colonialism, de-colonisation, decoloniality and indigeneity are especially welcome.

  1. Anarchist Geographies and Critical Pedagogies, Learning, and Teaching in the University

Anarchist commitment to pedagogies at all levels, from primary school to university, has been traditionally deployed in both the experimentation of freed schools and universities, self-organised outside any intervention of the state or of main educational institutions, and the work within existing institutions which can often provide a tribune to divulgate critical and anarchist contents. In these situations, one might find spaces for both experimentation and struggle against political and intellectual domination. Theoretical reflexions and cases of concrete experiences are both welcome in the context of a discussion on challenges to state and mainstream pedagogies and their spatialities.

 

Other areas may include, but are not limited to:

Anarcho-feminism Non-western anarchisms Anarchism and activism
The anarchist commons Anarchism and animal liberation. Authority, power, and the state

 

References

Barker, A. J., & Pickerill, J. (2012). Radicalizing relationships to and through shared geographies: Why anarchists need to understand indigenous connections to land and place. Antipode, 44(5), 1705-1725.

Barrera, G. and Ince, A. (2016). Post-statist epistemology and the future of geographical knowledge production. In Springer, S., Douza, M. L de, and White, R. J. (Eds.) The Radicalization of Pedagogy: Anarchism, Geography and the Spirit of Revolt. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ferretti, F. (2015). Anarchism, geohistory, and the Annales: rethinking Elisée Reclus’s influence on Lucien Febvre. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33, 347-365.

Rouhani, F. (2017). Creating Transformative Anarchist-Geographic Learning Spaces. In Robert Haworth and John Elmore (ed).Out of the Ruins: The Emergence of New Radical Informal Learning Spaces, Oakland: PM Press.

Souza, M. L. de (2014). Towards a libertarian turn? Notes on the past and future of radical urban research and praxis. City, 18(2), 104-118.

Springer, S. (2011). Public space as emancipation: meditations on anarchism, radical democracy, neoliberalism and violence. Antipode, 43(2), 525-562.

Springer, S. (2013). Anarchism and Geography: a brief genealogy of Anarchist Geographies. Geography Compass, 7(1), 46-60.

Springer, S. (2014). Why a radical geography must be anarchist. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(3), 249-270.

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

Springer, S, White R.J, Souza, M.L de. (2016) (eds.) The Radicalization of Pedagogy: Anarchism, Geography and the Spirit of Revolt, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.

White R.J, Springer, S., Souza, ML de. 2016 (eds.) The Practice of Freedom: Anarchism, Geography and the Spirit of Revolt, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.

White, R.J (2017) Rising to the challenge of capitalism and the commodification of animals: post-capitalism, anarchist economies and vegan praxis. In David Nibert (eds) Animal Oppression and Capitalism. Praeger, Conneticut.

 

We also welcome presentations in non-traditional and participatory formats. 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 Richard.White@shu.ac.uk; simonspringer@gmail.com; frouhani@umw.edu; and Federico.Ferretti@unige.ch by October 18th 2017.

Please 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 on/ before October 25th.

More details about submitting abstracts can be found here: annualmeeting.aag.org/AAGAnnualMeeting/AAGAnnualMeeting/…