‘Britain’s got behaviour’ – Will Davies on the rise of ‘behaviour shows’

Will Davies (author of The Limits of Neoliberalism and The Happiness Industry) has written a nice piece on his blog deconstructing two common trend in British TV programmes: a dynamic of competition and elimination; and an appeal to behaviourism. For Davies, this loosely equates to a kind of Hayek-ian ‘discovery procedure’ ~ no suffering, no discovery. What this constitutes, in the shape of programmes such as Dragons’ Den and Location, Location, Location is a ‘transparent mis-representation of what’s going on in the economy’. On contrast, Davies suggests that an alternative (regressive) move to behaviourism – exemplified by Married at First Sight and The Secret Life of [x] year olds.

The post is well worth a read – find it here.

Reblog> Diverse Economies and Livable Worlds

This looks interesting, via Nicholas Crane :

Diverse Economies and Livable Worlds

As part of an infrastructure for the construction of what Mark Purcell recently called ‘Joyful Geography,’ the editors of the Diverse Economies and Livable Worlds Book Series (with University of Minnesota Press) are soliciting book proposals. The recent Making Other Worlds Possible (2015) indicates a direction for the series. I cut and paste Kevin St. Martin’s announcement of the series below.

***

Diverse Economies and Liveable Worlds Book Series 

University of Minnesota Press

The Diverse Economies and Liveable Worlds Book Series offers a space where the theoretical and political conversations opened up by an anti-capitalocentric vision of economy can take place. The core concerns of this series are diverse economies as both a mode of inquiry and as actually existing, potential, and transformative economies. The series is explicitly focused on undoing our understanding of capitalism as a conceptual container. Thinking outside this container is what allows us to veer from the singularity, inequities, and degradations associated with ‘capitalism’. The Diverse Economies research program initiated by J.K. Gibson-Graham has carved out a new intellectual territory for interrogating and performing ‘more than capitalist’ worlds that is attracting many scholars. At the same time, on the ground, a plethora of movements are forging forms of post-capitalist politics that imagine and enact liveable worlds in which economies are refocused on meeting the needs of people and the planet. The series will attract established and emerging scholars who are pushing at the boundaries of thinking about how we represent and enact ‘the economy’, how we recognize and theorize economic diversity, and what a post-capitalist politics here and now might be.

The editors of this Book Series are J.K. Gibson-Graham k.gibson[at]westernsydney.edu.au, Maliha Safri msafri[at]drew.edu , Kevin St. Martin kstmarti[at]rci.rutgers.edu, and Stephen Healy stephen.healy[at]gmail.com.

We welcome book proposals from a wide range of fields including Architecture and Design, Anthropology, Assemblage and More than Human Studies, Business and Organization Management, Communications and Media, Economics:, Environmental Humanities, Geography, Philosophy, Political Science, Regional Planning, Sociology and Women’s Studies.

For more information please contact the Series Editors.

Does critical geography need a shock to thought? On Purcell’s ‘joyful geography’

Over on his blog Path to the Possible Mark Purcell has written a thoughtful and interesting piece diagnosing a slip into a kind of cynicism, or perhaps a rut in ‘critical’ thinking in geography, that the predominant disposition of criticality in ‘critical geography’ is of being against– :  “against colonialism, against capitalism, against racism, etc.”.

Purcell argues that a negative consensus of what constitutes ‘criticality’ has developed that has created an orthodoxy of negation:

“I worry that we have become inordinately attached to singing in this key, that we have become unable to do anything other than cancel what we oppose.”

Indeed, this echoes a criticism of the over-coding of the various readings of what one might mean by ‘neo-liberalism’ by James Ferguson in Antipode that, as Clive Barnett summarises: “identifies a standard style of critique as denunciation of exploitation, inequality and oppression” but that can also be rather limited.

In this way we might understand such an orthodoxy of a perpetuation of an adaption to the contemporary milieu, in the form of a negation of its conditions (such as, for example, labelling everything ‘neoliberalism’) rather than an adoption and then rethinking the practices/processes of the conditions that produce it [I’m riffing on Stiegler’s distinction between adaption (as a tendency towards dis-individuation) and adoption (as a tendency towards co-individuation)]. This ‘orthodoxy of negation’ (as I have chosen to call it) can be characterised as a kind of entropy, a slip from proactive thought into what might be a kind of un-thinking or ‘unreason’  and ‘stupidity’ (as Stiegler has it in States of Shock). Stupidity is a necessary tendency for all of us insofar as it is the precondition for knowledge, but we need a shock to thought in order to reinvigorate our capacities for knowledge. Of course, we are overburdened by shocks (as Naomi Klein outlines in The Shock Doctrine) that appear to arrive with increasing frequency. Rather than submit to simply adapting to the onslaught of ever-more-frequent shocks, following Stiegler’s analysis, we need to engender a therapeutic form of ‘shock’ to our thinking that doesn’t simply confirm a status quo of the orthodoxy of negation.

Reading this together with the argument presented by James Ferguson, who argues:

“what if politics is really not about expressing indignation or denouncing the powerful? What if it is, instead, about getting what you want? … Denunciatory analyses often treat government as the simple expression of power or domination–the implication apparently being that it is politically objectionable that people should be governed at all. But any realistic sort of progressive politics that would seek a serious answer to the question “what do we want?” will have to involve an exploration of the contemporary possibilities for developing genuinely progressive arts of government.”

Thus the habitual ruts of critique that Ferguson calls the “antis” (anti-globalisation, anti-neo-liberalism, anti-privatisation, etc.) in which any exercise of power is considered in some way dubious are, perhaps analogous to the forms of ‘stupidity’ (of entropy) that Stiegler argues against. I am not offering a simple and pejorative sweeping dismissal of any of those so-called “anti–” positions, neither am I making a glib appeal to Marx’s 11th thesis on Feuerbach. Nevertheless, I am suggesting that a more affirmative attitude might be necessary and that we all need to be aware of our own ‘stupidity’ (otherwise there’s simply no hope for individuation!).

I welcome a call for ‘joyfulness’ in research and in ‘critique’, a more affirmative attitude towards the exercise of power in the face of the orthodoxy of negation and all of this reminded me of Clive’s excellent reading of James Ferguson’s paper, upon which some of this post has been based. So, for me (and for what its worth) I guess I would advocate a kind of practical joyfulness – one that aspires to the same precepts of communing, of mutual aid, of solidarity that Purcell discusses in his blogpost and begins from the everydayness of doing geography (as an academic, as a teacher, as an activist and so on).

I’ve hardly slept due to a poorly child but I do think it’s worth reading all of these things I’ve linked here together to formulate a way of moving forward… just my grain de sel”Ž 🙂

The problematic imaginative geographies of collective ‘grieving’ on social media

This provocative article “Got a French flag on your Facebook profile picture? Congratulations on your corporate white supremacy” on The Independent‘s website makes for a compelling read.

I think is worth reading alongside the excellent letter from Paris by Judith Butler posted to the Verso blog “Mourning becomes the law” – also a must-read, really:

Mourning seems fully restricted within the national frame. The nearly 50 dead in Beirut from the day before are barely mentioned, and neither are the 111 in Palestine killed in the last weeks alone, or the scores in Ankara. Most people I know describe themseves as “at an impasse”, not able to think the situation through. One way to think about it may be to come up with a concept of transversal grief, to consider how the metrics of grievability work, why the cafe as target pulls at my heart in ways that other targets cannot. It seems that fear and rage may well turn into a fierce embrace of a police state. I suppose this is why I prefer those who find themselves at an impasse. That means that this will take some time to think through.  It is difficult to think when one is appalled. It requires time, and those who are willing to take it with you

A few snippets from The Independent article:

So you want to show solidarity with France – specifically, with those killed in Paris this weekend. If you’re a British person who wants to do that because you feel sympathy and sadness for people who are brutally massacred, regardless of their nationality, then fine. I just hope that you also change your profile picture to a different country’s flag every time people are wrongly killed as the result of international conflicts – for example, during the attack on Beirut in Lebanon just the day before.

…

Flags are politically and historically charged symbols (just look at the infamous and aptly self-styled Isis flag itself), symbolising states and representing influence, power, segregation, borders, nationalism and identity – some of the most commonly held reasons for armed conflict. It’s important, before overlaying a flag on your smiling face, to think about this.

…

I’m guessing you didn’t feel moved to drape yourself in the Tricolore [sic] until Facebook pushed that option out to you, possibly even until you saw how many people had already snapped it up. But paint-by-numbers solidarity when it’s foisted on you by one of the most powerful companies in the world is simply not the way to help a traumatised nation in shock after murder.

I’d just add that apparently the tricolor overlay implemented by Facebook has a setting that allows the user to automatically switch it off after a given length of time… how convenient.

There has, of course, been some interesting academic and journalistic discussion of what has been referred to as ‘recreational grieving’ and ‘mourning sickness‘ that is cognate to this argument, but the article above puts in sharper relief complex issues concerning the kinds of imaginative geographies that are being (re)produced and performed in response to the incredibly sad and horrific events that took place in Paris last weekend and their aftermath… something Derek Gregory has also written about on his blog.

Reblog> RGS Postgraduate Forum conference, blog, and social media

From the HPGRG website:

POSTGRADUATE FORUM CONFERENCE, BLOG, AND SOCIAL MEDIA

For all our postgraduates, please see below for details of the Conference, the recently launched PhD Life Blog, and the Forum’s social media presence:

Postgraduate Forum Midterm Conference, Newcastle University, 17/18 March 2016. Full details and the call for papers can be found at http://www.pgf.rgs.org/mid-term-conference-2016-main/ The deadline is 27 November 2015.

PhD Life Blog – The Postgraduate Forum have launched a new blog (PhD Life) section of their website, aimed at charting the day to day life of being a geography postgraduate student. They are also looking for PhD students from all across the discipline to act as guest bloggers for them; if you know of anyone who maybe interested in blogging, then please put them in touch.

The Postgraduate Forum are on Facebook and Twitter!

CFP> “Spatializing Sovereignty”

Another interesting event, from the Society for Radical Geography, Spatial Theory, and Everyday Life, short deadline now though: 20th Nov. –– I saw this via Mark Purcell.

2016 Symposium CFP: “Spatializing Sovereignty”

Featuring keynote addresses by:
Dr. Mishuana Goeman, Professor of American Indian Studies and Gender Studies, UCLA
and Gelare Khoshgozaran, Writer and Multi-disciplinary Artist

UC Berkeley
March 4, 2016

While sovereignty is often defined in terms of the bounded nation-state, this symposium convenes to examine competing, overlapping, and “nested sovereignties” (Simpson 2014). How is the spatiality of sovereignty felt, practiced, embodied, inhabited, or imposed at various scales? We might consider how the thousands of missing and murdered Indigenous women in Canada and the U.S. lay bare logics of patriarchal white settler sovereignty, while ongoing state-sanctioned violence reveals that anti-Blackness is also constitutive of and central to securing the nation state. What might the controlling and blocking of Syrian refugee movement say about state sovereignty in this moment? Furthermore, transnational feminist scholars have continuously interrogated the relationship between regimes of debt and modes of sovereignty in the Global South. Movements resisting these forms of violence in turn show how the gendered and racialized body becomes a site at which sovereignty can be (re)articulated.

This symposium seeks explorations of how sovereignty is spatialized at all levels, from the power of mapping, to the affects and “erotics of sovereignty” (Rifkin 2012), to the praxis of sovereign polities. How do variously defined geographies determine the limitations and possibilities of sovereignty as concept, as process, and as discursive and political strategy?

Possible topics can include but are not limited to:

  •        Indigenous sovereignty and spatial justice
  •        Geographies of race and racialization
  •        Spatialization of affect and affective sovereignty
  •        Corporeal sovereignty and biopolitics
  •        Sovereignty, space, and disability
  •        Sovereignty in and through artistic, literary, and expressive cultures
  •        Transnational feminist theory and the sovereign
  •        Critical feminist, queer, and trans readings of sovereignty
  •        Bordering and colonialisms
  •        Neoliberal governance and state sovereignty
  •        Sovereignty and carceral power
  •        Sovereignty and sexuality, desire, and the erotic
  •        Climate justice, ecologies of space, and the anthropocene
  •        Urban regimes and the right to the city

Though we welcome submissions that deal generally with spatial theory, special consideration will be given to abstracts that engage this year’s theme. We encourage abstracts from activists, artists, and academics at all stages of research, and will consider proposals of any format for 20-minute presentations (including conference papers, artist talks, art interventions, short film screenings, and activist report-backs). This symposium is committed to producing sustained conversations and a collaborative environment for scholars, artists, and activists whose work engages our society’s interests in radical geography, spatial theory, and everyday life. Those interested may submit proposals of no more than 500 words to radicalspaces@gmail.com by November 20, 2015. Presenters will be notified of their acceptance by December 15, 2015.

This year’s symposium will be held at UC Berkeley on March 4, 2016 featuring two keynote addresses: Dr. Mishuana Goeman, associate professor of Gender Studies and American Indian Studies at UCLA, and Gelare Khoshgozaran, writer and multi-disciplinary artist.

References

Rifkin, Mark. (2012). The Erotics of Sovereignty: Queer Native Writing in the Era of Self-Determination. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Simpson, Audra. (2014). Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States. Durham: Duke University Press.

MSc Society & Space (Bristol) blog

I somehow stumbled across this via Twitter – a wonderful thing: the Masters programme that many of my colleagues at Exeter and I variously took at Bristol in preparation for PhD study has a blog written by current students.

There are some insightful and interesting posts already up there and hopefully there will be a few more to come. Really nice to see!

Check out the blog here:

http://bristolsocietyandspace.com/

Reblog> Details for the Gender & Geography Bibliography Hackathon

Via Jen Jack Gieseking:

Details for the Gender & Geography Bibliography Hackathon

I am delighted to share that the Gender & Geography Bibliography Hackathon will take place November 15th-21st, 2015. A hackathon is a time when a group of people come together to work on a digital project, usually by coding and creating content for an app or website. Skills and time involved are minimal. The outcome is a profound source of public knowledge across fields, as well as training in the citation management software, Zotero.

We are eagerly seeking faculty, students, staff, & citizens who want to take part any time and anywhere during the week of 11/15 to add to and edit the now 3,000+ large online, citation database of feminist geographic sources. We are particularly keen to have folks contribute books, book chapters, and multimedia citations from across disciplines, and we are extremely eager for contributions of non-English materials. Folks can work on their own or form their own groups. Sign up here to participate: http://bit.ly/GGBhack_signup. All of the detailed directions based on the summary below can be found here: http://gpow.org/gendergeog/2015/10/23/how-to-ggb-hackathon/.

Please share word of the GGBH with friends, colleagues, and students who may find it of interest. This video below explains the gist of the GGBH:

Ash, Kitchin, Leszczynski on what ‘digital’ means for geography

Saw this only this morning, blogged over on The Programmable City website. Looks like a fairly comprehensive description of a set of issues within geography.

New paper: Digital Turn, Digital Geography?

James Ash, Rob Kitchin and Agnieszka Leszczynski have published a new paper entitled ‘Digital Turn, Digital Geography?‘ available as Programmable City Working Paper 17 on SSRN.

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the relationship between the digital and geography. Our analysis provides an overview of the rich scholarship that has examined: (1) geographies of the digital, (2) geographies produced by the digital, and (3) geographies produced through the digital. Using this material we reflect on two questions: has there been a digital turn in geography? and, would it be productive to delimit ‘digital geography’ as a field of study within the discipline, as has recently occurred with the attempt to establish ‘digital anthropology’ and ‘digital sociology’? We argue that while there has been a digital turn across geographical sub-disciplines, the digital is now so pervasive in mediating the production of space and in producing geographic knowledge that it makes little sense to delimit digital geography as a distinct field. Instead, we believe it is more productive to think about how the digital reshapes many geographies

I would say, having only skim-read the paper, that it does sort of perpetuate a disquiet I’ve felt for some time about how a particular ind of discursive regime, with a particular set of power brokers, is being built around the “geographies” prefixed with ‘algorithmic’; ‘data’; ‘digital’… perhaps there are some others… and what that might mean… maybe its just that there are only a few people that actually write stuff about this and they all know each other… anglophone geography is after all quite a small discipline. Maybe I’m a part of that too, with the little I’ve written on the subject. However, its evident in other disciplinary contexts too, such as the way in which particular people seem to be the leading lights in ‘digital sociology‘.

Maybe I’m just performing my own anxiety about career, struggling to write myself and being on probation in an institution with rather lofty expectations, but maybe there’s also something to my observation about the politics of being a researcher of a modish subject. Perhaps people who do stuff on the ‘anthropocene’ and anthropogenic climate change feel similarly, perhaps not… Perhaps I’m also damaging my own ‘career’ by blogging like this. Who knows… I certainly don’t mean it as a slight to the authors of the above paper, or anyone else.

“How I learned to stopped worrying and to love discipline“

Reblog> CFP: Deleuzian Geographies

CFP: Deleuzian Geographies

Association of American Geographers (AAG) Annual Meeting,
March 29-April 2, 2016
San Francisco, California

“We do not yet know the thought of Deleuze. Too often, whether hostile or adoring, we act as if his concepts were familiar, as if it were enough that his concepts simply touch us in order for us to understand them without spelling them out, or as if we had already made a survey of their promises” (Zourabichvili, 2012: 139)

This session speaks to the ever-growing engagement with the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze in geography and the social sciences. The session will take stock of how Deleuzian (and Deleuzeo-Guattarian) concepts – such as affect, assemblage, becoming, de/re/territorialisation, difference, event, individuation, the minor, and the molecular – have been taken up in geography, productively amplifying key problematics that stage both new conceptual openings and new points of contestation (Sharpe et al, 2014; Woodward and Jones III, 2005).

In particular, we seek papers that respond to Francois Zourabichili’s (2012) call to (re-)engage Deleuze’s philosophy not as a revolution already-made, but instead as a force of creative encounter. Following Deleuze, what are the evaluative terms and stakes of thinking currently emerging in the contact zones of, for example, politics, aesthetics, science, the economy, ethics, and ecology (Ruddick, 2010; Doel and Clarke, 2007; McCormack, 2007; Hynes, 2015; Bonta and Protevi, 2004). We welcome papers then from across the field of geography that explore how Deleuze’s concepts participate in events of thinking that displace extant fields of intelligibility, generating new terms for modifying the conditions of the problems posed by society today. We offer the following ‘conceptual problematics’ and ‘terrains of contestation’ as possible suggestions of some themes that papers might address:

Conceptual problematics:
– Vital materialism and ecologies of nonorganic life
– Dispositions, tendencies, inclinations
– Ethics and the affective production of bodies
– Deleuze’s transcendental empiricism and alternative theorizations of subjectivity
– Earth-thinking: geophilosophy and chaosmosis
– Space after Deleuze: the ‘fold’ of topological thinking and the critique of interiority
– Art after Deleuze: encounters in cinema, music, literature etc.
– Politics after Deleuze: micropolitics and desire

Milieus of contestation:
– Deleuze’s differential ontology: coherence in becoming as opposed to that in being?
– New materialisms and a philosophy of the event: theorising matter as tendency, disposition, inclination as opposed to object-oriented, phenomenological and networked theories?
– The politics of affect: thinking an affective politics through the evental lens of singularities, thresholds and individuations as opposed to those that think these politics through objects, conditions, and atmospheres?
– Deleuze and research methodologies: what is the efficacy in experimenting beyond representation, beyond recognition?
– Deleuze and philosophy: are there different Deleuzes (Deleuze- Nietzsche, -Spinoza, -Bergson, -Simondon, -Whitehead) and how do they marry each to the other?

Please submit abstracts of 250 words or less to Andrew.Lapworth[at]bristol.ac.uk by Wednesday 21st October, 2015.

For more information and more general expressions of interest, please contact the session organizers:

Andrew Lapworth, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol
Andrew.Lapworth[at]bristol.ac.uk

Scott Sharpe, School of Physical, Environmental & Mathematical Sciences, UNSW@Canberra,
S.Sharpe[at]adfa.edu.au

JD Dewsbury, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol,
Jd.dewsbury[at]bristol.ac.uk