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 2016. 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.

The AAG abstract deadline is 27 October 2016: http://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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 (katharine.h.kindervater@dartmouth.edu) and Nisha Shah (nisha.shah@uottawa.ca) by October 1, 2016

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

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

Organizers:

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 (saranhughes@ucla.edu) by Friday, 14 October 2016.

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

Session title: Practices of Decolonization and Racial Justice in Geography

Session convenors: Amber Murrey (Clark University), Patricia Daley (University of Oxford), and Yonique Campbell (The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus)

During the early years of the 21^st Century, we have witnessed powerful reassertions of the continuing political, social, and economic relevance of decolonizing projects within the university. Working within many intellectual paradigms (subaltern studies, area studies, feminist and anti-racist politicalecology, decolonial studies, critical race studies, anarchist thought), decolonizing scholars have advanced innovative projects to undermine privilege and power within institutions of higher learning. These efforts have included the bolstering of a sundry and powerful literature articulating critiques of racial, gender, andgeographical inequalities and their reverberations and influences within university spaces. These dialogues confront deeply rooted, complex, and multidimensional power structures that continue to effect and enforce long-standing colonial inequalities. There is a well-developed and self-critical scholarship withingeography that has called out the discipline’s whiteness (in our classrooms, in our curriculums, and in our reference lists), the discipline’s privileging of Anglophone voices and places, the discipline’s role in advancing colonial projects, and the discipline’s hetero-normative methodological orientations. Race and colonialism have been urgently re-centered in today’s universities. This re-centering is made all the more acute by the charged global atmosphere created by the US Presidential Election, by rising anti-Black and anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence across North America and Western Europe, by demands to confront long-standing racial injustices within policing practices, by the racialized effects of global climate change, and by growing global economic inequalities.

At the same time, powerful student movements and activist-intellectual projects—from #RhodesMustFall to #whyismycurriculumsowhite to #CadaanStudies to “I, Too, Am Harvard” to #BlackLivesMatter to #FeesMustFall—have demanded that university administration and faculty account for the entanglements and engagements of the university with(in) historical and contemporary forms of oppression (both on and off campus). Indeed, universities have long been spaces wherein larger social changes reverberate profoundly: spaces of resistance and struggle as well as oppression and suppression.

We have seen this again throughout more than 18-months of sustained #Oromo student struggles across the Oromo region of Ethiopia, where hundreds of student activists have been shot at, beaten, and disappeared, where Internet connectivity has been reduced, and where campuses have been occupied by military police officers. We have seen this again through the violent police crackdown on protestors at the University of Nairobi, which resulted in the indefinite closing of the institution. We have seen this again in campuses across the US and the UK, where students have disrupted sporting events and held die-ins and lie-ins to bring attention to racial inequalities within their campuses and communities, s but are met with opposition and condemnation. Again, as we drafted this CfP, news was breaking that police fired teargas and shot rubber bullets at students (protesting increased tuition fees) at the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s Howard campus.

Call for Abstracts

For this AAG panel session, we invite activists, scholars, artists, and decolonizers to participate in dialogue on these and other efforts underway to decolonize in the university. We are excited by the prospect of creating meaningful conversations across paradigms and between traditions of knowledge, so that scholars advocating and practicing slow scholarship against/within neoliberalized/managerialized academic cultures connect, for example, with anti-racist scholars… or so that anti-racist slow scholars engage with anarchist feminist pedagogists and Pan-African political ecologists, and so on. Bringing together people who are actively involved in efforts to decolonize the university and the discipline of geography, we will reflect on (collective experiences of) decolonization as a critical practice. At the same time, we have witnessed co-optations of calls to “decolonize the university” within hegemonic institutional frames, laid out, as these calls have been, through normative and established hierarchies of place and knowledge within our unequal and still-colonized global higher education landscape. We will be attentive to such efforts to mainstream or instrumentalize intellectual decolonization(s) and calls for racial justice.

Towards these ends, we invite outlines of potential discussions (200 words) that address these and other related issues. Possible topics include:

• Creating and sustaining collaborative decolonizing academic cultures
• The role of scholars in decolonizing and/or colonizing projects
• Enactions and/or experimentations of pedagogical, curriculum, and classroom decolonization(s)
• Contemporary student movements and (re)configurations of power within university spaces
• Instrumentalization(s) of anti-racist or anti-colonial knowledge projects by hegemonic actors
• Racial justice, racial inequalities, and the discipline of geography (or the social sciences)
• Place-based reflections on the politics of appeals to “decolonize knowledge,” to “decolonize the university,” and/or to “decolonizegeography”
• Engagements with academic exclusions and punishment(s) within university spaces

Contacts

If you would like to participate in this conversation, please send an outline of your ideas (200 words) to Patricia Daley (patricia.daley@geog.ox.ac.uk), Yonique Campbell (yonique.campbell02@uwimona.edu.jm), and Amber Murrey (amurrey@clarku.edu) by Friday October 7^th, 2016. We look forward to connecting with you.

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

Session title: Future Technologies, Future Geographies

The beginning premise of this session is that humanity is on a trajectory of rapidly accelerating technological progression that will fundamentally change our world in the not too distant future. Yet, while there is much evidence for such a trajectory, geographers have shied away from engaging its geographical implications. This is odd. Whereas geographers are willing to hypothesize the possible future outcomes of rising global temperatures, they seem reluctant to think through the possible consequences of emergent technologies. One indication of this reluctance is the almost complete absence of transhumanism within any academic geographical discussions. This session seeks to establish a forum for geographers interested in thinking through some of the many possible humangeographical implications of future technologies.

For the purposes of this session, there is no clear boundary for what is considered a future technology, but generally the term refers to technologies that have not yet become fully implemented or marketed. Some future technologies that appear to be just on the horizon include autonomous robots/vehicles, nanotechnology, 3-D printing, and ubiquitous computing. Further off technologies that are still in the exploratory realm include radical life extension, advanced artificial intelligence (AI), nuclear fusion energy, and molecular manufacturing.  This session is open to constructive geographical engagements with any future technologies. Papers are particularly encouraged that point to specific ways that current political-economic-social structures will be challenged and potentially rethought via these future technologies.

Possible questions to be addressed include:

• What impact will autonomous vehicles have on city planning? On transportation infrastructure?
• What are the implications of autonomous vehicles/robots and AI for thegeography of labor?
• What will some of the economic geographic consequences be of 3-D printing, nanotechnology, ubiquitous computing?
• Will economic globalization be threatened or strengthened by future technologies?
• What are the implications of these technologies for the developing world?
• Will the geography of raw material acquisition change with the advent of new forms of manufacturing?
• Will advanced AI lead to a decentralization of the service sector?
• Could manufacturing and services be de-commoditized through future technology shareware? What would the geography of that look like?
• What are the geographic consequences of a future economy that is run autonomously?
• Will cryptocurrencies come to impact the geography of money?
• What will the future geography of energy look like?
• Can future technologies lead to the fracturing of scalar power dynamics, i.e. a diminishing of corporate and state power in favor of increased local and regional power?
• Would an increasingly decentralized economy brought about by future technologies bring about changes in political boundaries?
• What are some of the possible demographic consequences of radically extended life?
• What would the geography of access to life extension technology look like?
• What are some geographical dimensions to transhumanism?

*** Please send an abstract, with contact information, to Hannes Gerhardt (hgerhard@westga.edu) by October 20, 2016. 

This session is organized by Hannes Gerhardt (Associate Professor at University of West Georgia)

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

Session title: Critical Worldbuilding: Toward a Geographical Engagement with Speculative Fiction

Session Organizers: Jeffrey Martin (University of California, Berkeley) and Gretchen Sneegas (University of Georgia)

“Worldbuilding” – the construction of imaginary worlds – has long been a staple of speculative and visionary fiction. Today, the creation of alternate science fiction and fantasy universes – often with their own maps, histories, ecologies, cultures, and social structures – increasingly contributes to popular culture and big business. From novels to movies to games, from alternate versions of the “real world” (Marvel’s many properties, True Blood, Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle) to the more alien and bizarre (the many settings of Dungeons and Dragons, James Cameron’s Avatar, China Miéville’s Bas-Lag), these worlds represent an important and under-considered object of study and intervention for critical geographers.

While speculative fiction has long been examined as a lens through which to view the world – as it was, is, or could be – we contend that geography and critical social science have been under-involved in the creation, analysis, and struggles over fictional worlds. Worldbuilding is a fundamentally geographical exercise and an unavoidably political act (even if not recognized as such) – ideas, concerns, and controversies in the “real world” are embedded and reproduced through fictional worlds, and the production and consumption of these worlds informs and is informed by contemporary debates.

In this call for papers, we ask: How might critical social science and geographicaltools help us understand and engage with speculative fiction? How might criticalgeography inform the creation of “better” fictional worlds, and to what end(s)? What can fictional worlds tell us about our “real” world? How might speculative fiction contribute to geographical and social science theory and method, in a similar manner to the history of dialogue between science fiction and technological practice?

We seek a selection of papers and other contributions (see below) representing the breadth of the geographic discipline, across such themes and sub-disciplines as earth sciences, political economy, discursive representation, race, gender, technology, ecology, social relations, ideological reproductions, cartography, and more. Possible topics include, but are in no way limited to:

• Critical race theory and the construction of the other/alien;
• Landscape as character, the co-production of social and physical landscapes;
• The durability of environmental determinism and other debunked narratives in fiction;
• Colonialism and the frontier, progress narratives and modernization;
• Cartography and the representation of fictional/speculative worlds;
• Political economy’s presence and absence across worlds, and the naturalization of capitalism;
• “Blindspots”/erasures in historical fiction, “reading back” modern norms;
• Tropes, “resonance”, and challenging “realism” in speculative fiction (see esp. gender, sexism);
• Nature and environmentalism;
• Present and near-future u/dystopias

**We also welcome submissions representing less “traditional” forms of analytical scholarly work. Such submissions may include short works of fiction, graphic novels/comics, poetry, video shorts, maps, and other forms of representation showcasing our own worldbuilding geographic expression.**

Bringing together a diverse group of theoretical orientations, we hope this session will contribute critical insights to ongoing discussions on the interrelation between art and politics, the “real world” and the many worlds of our imaginations.

Please send an abstract of no more than 250 words by 5 p.m., October 15 to: Jeff Martin (j.vance.martin [at] berkeley [dot] edu) and Gretchen Sneegas (gsneegas [at] uga [dot] edu).