CfP RGS-IBG 2019 Calamitous 'events'? Exploring perceptions of disaster timeframes
Notions of temporality lie at the heart of the idea of disaster, with lived 'events' underpinned by the existential experience of trauma or abnormality across a defined human population (Perry, 2007; Quarantelli, 1985). Yet what constitutes such a (disaster) event remains deeply problematic, with allegations the event has even been 'dissolved' in analysis (Fassin and Vasquez, 2005). The impact of hazards like storms, tsunamis or even chemical leaks can most clearly be located in a particular time and space, yet none of these automatically results in a disaster or in a shared traumatic memory. Safeguards are frequently put in place to prevent hazards turning into disasters, while distinct cultural developments have sometimes equipped people with the means to familiarise hazards (or even traumas) to the point of avoiding them embedding in memory (Kruger et al., 2015).
Disasters are always interpreted through social experience in specific social time (Oliver-Smith and Hoffman, 2002). Nonetheless, notions of disasters as unexpected, negative, traumatic events are being eroded from multiple sides. Disasters have been discussed variously as ('beautiful') focusing events (Lowry, 2006), as forcing breakthroughs in 'disaster diplomacy' (Kelman, 2012), as potentially changing the social contract (Pelling and Dill, 2010), or as punctuating an equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). Approaches focussed on adaptive management and social-ecological resilience (Renn, 2008) tend to see disaster events as part of cyclical or functional processes involving the disruption and restoration of normative stability, and as such undercut subjective 'meaning' and 'memory' among individuals and communities, just as they demote questions of social and political power.
Conversely (or in parallel), vulnerability analyses go a long way toward explaining the unequal experience of hazard impacts, and thus the kinds of social and spatial conditions that actually produce a disaster. Chronic and ongoing vulnerability can be a disaster in the making, long before the earth shakes - in this sense all disasters are 'slow-onset' (Kelman, 2018). From this perspective the focus on discreet shocks or events, rooted in mysterious 'outside' forces, can side-track us from the development issues that count. From Oliver-Smith's (2012) Peruvian '500-year earthquake' to Wisner et al.'s (2004) build-up of 'pressure', and onwards to the creation of increasingly hazardous and uneven planetary space under capitalist urbanization (Braun, 2014; Brenner, 2013), the idea of what constitutes the event itself is dissipating under the weight of socio-spatial production. 'Eventfulness' can be an abstraction based around late liberal governance or governmentality; the internalised strategy of blaming nature an integral part of what sustains everyday marginality as a 'non-event' (Povinelli, 2011). From geophysical hazards to industrial pollution, questioning the diffusion of knowledge of hazardous environments speaks to the manipulation of social subjectivities and the limitations of perceptions of existential experience (Auyero and Swistun, 2009).
In this panel we seek papers exploring spatial and temporal contexts and limits surrounding disaster events, or as the case may be, disaster non-events. Whether they are primarily theory-based or also engage with a disaster case study, contributions will ideally place theories in productive dialogue.
Robert Coates and Jeroen Warner
Disaster Studies, Sociology of Development and Change, Wageningen University
Please submit abstracts of no more than 250 words to firstname.lastname@example.org by 7th February 2019. Discussion over possible contributions is also welcome.
Starting with the end...
Organised by: Ruth Raynor and Nick Rush-Cooper.
Call for Papers RGS-IBG Annual Conference, 28th August - 30th August 2019, London
Sponsored by HPGRG
Supposedly, we are living in an 'age' of endings: the end of modernity, the end of liberalism, the end of countless species, the end of capitalism or the end of the world? At the same time great scrutiny in the social sciences has been given to the 'impasse:' a slow and on-going crisis. This work points to acts of grasping or holding on, and to the collectively sensed impossibility of endings, even as they begin to unfold. This session seeks work that offers theoretical and/or empirically grounded interventions into the ethics and practices of ending (withdrawal, divestment, foreclosure...) examples might include but are not limited to end of life and end of life care, end of conflict and suffering, species decline, catastrophe and disaster, end of extraction, contingency planning, end of exploitation, loss of intimate relationships. Presentations may also consider disciplinary endings, such as the end of (or claims about the end of) certain ways of thinking, doing, and knowing: the end of the dominance of representational approaches? The end of class? The end of positivism?
The session seeks to engage with and move beyond the rhetoric of ending as threat. It does not assume a direction to the morality of endings: they may both open and foreclose opportunities, they may be both hopeful and troubling, but they will be experienced unevenly and unequally. What does it mean, then, to start with an end? How do endings take place? How are they planned for, or not? What are the temporalities of endings: are they slow, sudden? What labours might be involved in enacting, or accepting an ending? What are the limits to our understanding of the end? And how might those limits become constructive? Who or what names, declares, decides, announces, an end and what are the effects of this? How are endings felt? What lingers and what might be salvaged or reclaimed after the impossibility of returning to business as usual solidifies?
Please send abstracts of no more than 200 words to Ruth.Raynor@newcastle.ac.uk and Nick.Rush-Cooper@newcastle.ac.uk by Wednesday the 30th January.
CALL FOR PAPERS
3rd Peaceful Coexistence Colloquium, 13-14 June 2019, University of Helsinki
AFTER THE ANTHROPOCENE: TIME AND MOBILITY
Sooner or later, the Earth will reach the end of ‘the Anthropocene’. As the effects of changing climatic regimes impose greater effects on earthbound habitation and ways of being in the present geological epoch known, we would like to consider how humans and/or socio-nature might and should respond. Could we, for example, imagine a time after the Anthropocene, when humans would no longer be the dominant species on the planet? And if so, what would this imply to social organisation? Could we consider the notion of the ‘late Anthropocene’ relevant for discussing the present when humanity – albeit in different place-specific ways – is forced to adapt in radical ways to the challenges that it faces?
Scholarly debate to date has paid relatively little attention to this space-time. Instead, the discussion continues to revolve around questions such as when the human-dominated epoch began; what to call it; who or what is to blame for it; and how might we respond to it in the immediate future. While these questions certainly deserve consideration, effort should also be aimed at questions of how the Anthropocene might come to an end (as a discourse and as an epoch); what post-Anthropocene might look like; and what this might signify for organizing social change, and/or caring for the non-human nature?
In this colloquium, we focus on questions of time and mobility, insofar as these concepts enrich our understandings of what comes after the Anthropocene and how to exit the Anthropocene. Organizers seek workshops, artistic interventions, and academic presentations, and innovative sessions that explore time and mobility after the Anthropocene. In relation to time and/or mobility, possible topics are:
Just as the Anthropocene marked a global matter-energetic shift, the end of the human epoch also marks significant changes in the deep geological time of the Earth’s history. Different temporal perspective and rhythms might well play a role in how the time after the Anthropocene will unfold. There is a need to begin to conceive time not only in anthropocentric terms, but more holistically, e.g. in terms of rocks. Thus, instead of merely seeking to save the world for future human generations, consideration and care for other animals, plants, and rocks – constituents of the Earth – open up a different time horizon.
A possibility is that the on-going mass movement of people and other earthbound beings will both be an outcome and reason for the new epoch. Furthermore, the travel of earthbound beings beyond the boundaries of Earth –the exploitation of space, is an issue calling for critical reflection. And the mobility of deep geological formations of the Earth merits consideration as well; the movement of lithospheric plates has historically changed the course of life on the planet in a remarkable way. The trouble of moving, living and dying together in the late Anthropocene necessarily brings about new practical and theoretical questions of power, as the recent formulations of ‘geopower’, for instance, cogently demonstrate.
If you would like to present your work at the colloquium, please send an extended abstract of 800-1000 words by 30 January 2019 to the coordinator Toni Ruuska (email@example.com). Also in case you have any questions about the meeting, please do not hesitate to contact.
RGS IBG 2019: The politics of hope within systems of border control: Troubled subjects, materials and temporalities
The politics of hope within systems of border control: Troubled subjects, materials and temporalities
Organisers: Sarah Hughes (Durham University) & Daniel Fisher (Exeter University)
“Is there a better optimism? And a right way to lose hope? It depends who’s hoping, for what, for whom – and against whom. We must learn to hope with teeth.”
China Miéville 2018, The limits of Utopia
The contemporary landscape of border control is not widely considered to be hopeful. Profit margins and a political rhetoric of ‘secure borders’ are valued more than life lived in fullness. The UK’s hostile environment policies, the measures put in place by ‘Fortress Europe’, ‘Brexit’ and anxieties of settled status, escalating family detention and Trump’s border wall are but a few examples of increasing hostility to migrants. Simply put, things are getting worse.
And yet hope remains. The politics of migration control can also be characterised as a struggle for/over hope. We encounter hopeful actions in those moving to find family, escape war, find work and in aims for a better life. We find them in the activists and charities working to kindle hope within these systems. Yet we also see hope in the policy strategies to deter ‘hopeful’ migrants, to reduce incentives and to ‘increase border security’. What then, does it mean to talk of ‘hope’ in the context of such increasingly pervasive, hostile and deadly systems of border control? What forms of politics does a focus upon hope open up, and what does it risk precluding? And what might it mean to “hope with teeth” (Mieville 2018)?
The aim for border scholars and activists, however, cannot be to simply engender a sense of hopefulness in the face of such strategies. In this session we therefore seek to further unpack the politics of hope in the context of borders and immigration control by recognising that hope is not necessarily positive, nor is it inherently progressive. We trouble the potentially dangerous simplicity of the ‘hopeful migrant subject’, focusing instead on the multiple forms of hopeful, incoherent subjectivities that are emerging within systems of border control. We also seek to investigate the power of objects and things in shaping the forms and intensities of hope or despair. Furthermore, what temporalities of hope emerge in the context of border control?
We welcome papers and submissions in non-traditional formats (for example video or visual submissions) that explore themes including but not limited to:
Miéville, China. “The Limits of Utopia” Climate and Capitalism, March 2nd 2018. https://climateandcapitalism.com/2018/03/02/china-mieville-the-limits-of-utopia/
Time and Austerity: Troubled pasts/ hopeful futures?
Royal Geographical Society with IBG Annual Conference, London, Wednesday 28 to Friday 30 August 2019
Session convenors: Stephanie Denning (Coventry University), Sarah Marie Hall (University of Manchester) and Ruth Raynor (Newcastle University)
Session sponsorship: the Social and Cultural Geography Research Group
In September 2018, the UK Prime Minister Theresa May claimed that 'austerity is over'. This announcement was made after a decade of austerity policies, the everyday effects of which geographers have explored. These sessions engage with the question of time and austerity: they consider how, after the naming of an 'end,' austerity will endure, and continue to be endured. Over two sessions, we take stock of current research on austerity in human geography and consider where it is heading.
In the first session, lightning talks of 5 minutes and interactive displays will showcase creative practice approaches to austerity research. These will generate discussion with session participants about the place of participatory, activist and socially engaged research in the geographies of austerity. For this session we welcome submissions from both academic researchers, and practitioners and voluntary sector organisations. To support practitioners and voluntary sector organisations' participation we will be able to apply for RGS guest passes to support their attendance.
For the second session, 15 minute conference papers will question the multiple and complex durations of austerity. Is austerity ending? What might be next to come? This session will include projects that are in their preliminary stages of research, and those which focus on the future of austerity.
Together these two sessions will enable us to explore time and austerity: bringing together hope and trouble in the past, present and anticipated futures of austerity.
Please send 250 word abstracts to all three session conveners by Monday 4th February (firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org) and indicate whether you are submitting to session 1 (lightening talk and interactive display) or session 2 (traditional papers).
For more details about the RGS Annual Conference visit https://www.rgs.org/research/annual-international-conference/
Call for Papers for the upcoming RC21 Conference in Delhi, September 18-21, 2019 (Deadline January 20)
Un/Doing Future: Anticipatory Practices, Aspirational Politics (P34)
The concept of the future, its prognostications and applications, shapes present social worlds. Sketches and imaginaries of different futures drive cultural processes and social change. Inspired by the “hopeful futures” subtheme of the RC21 2019 conference, this panel seeks to interrogate the dynamics of futurity and future-making. From government policy to activists’ counter cultural interventions, architectural design, or sustainable technology development, imaginations of the future manifest in practices and take concrete form in cities and beyond. For example, Ghertner’s study of slum clearance in Delhi underlines the ruling aesthetics of an imagined future and its impacts on urban dispossession today (2015). As the repercussions of the future become ever more apparent, futurity itself demands further attention. In this panel session on “Un/Doing Future” we ask: How is the future invented, researched, and renounced? Which anticipatory practices and aspirational politics are at play in shaping urban life? What are the imaginative epistemologies at work in ethnographic research and what role does ethnography play in processes of un/doing the future? For this panel, we are seeking researchers who employ a variety of methods to study these questions, evaluate different future routes, and interrogate their consequences for our present.
To submit, please email an abstract (max 300 words) and clearly state the title of the paper, research questions, theoretical contribution and connection to the panel theme.
Author details about institutional affiliation must also be included.
The subject of the email should include Panel Number and Name (Un/Doing Future: Anticipatory Practices, Aspirational Politics P34).
Email your submission to both conveners email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org and cc: email@example.com at the latest by 20 January 2019.
Please see the https://rc21delhi2019.com/ for further details about the selection process.
TAG 2019: Slow Archaeology Call for Papers
3-5 May 2019, Syracuse, NY
A downloadable PDF copy of the Call for Papers is available here TAG 2019 CFP
Archaeology, along with other disciplines in the humanities and sciences, has kept pace with the accelerated and accelerating tempos and rhythms of the modern world. This acceleration has produced what some have called “fast science,” characterized as “managerial, competitive, data-centric, technocratic, and alienated from the societies it serves and studies” (Cunningham and MacEachern 2016:4). Critiques of these accelerations have emerged as offshoots of the broader “slow movement” in the sciences that call for the multivalent benefits—in theory, method, practice, publication, and teaching—of “decelerating” archaeology. Advocates for slow science—and slow archaeology in particular—highlight the importance of social relationships, long-term engagements (both social and material), and careful contemplation and collaboration. Please visit about slow archaeology for a full discussion, bibliography, and reading list.
Call for Sessions and Papers
We welcome sessions and papers that engage in any/all issues encompassed by the broad scope of “slow” approaches to archaeology (and related approaches to knowing the past/present). A direct/overt engagement with slow theory and approaches is not necessary, and of course critical perspectives on the potentials/problems of this are welcome. Sessions and papers may engage with any number of topics that draw together the contributions of the ontological turn, with a consideration of the ethics, consequences, opportunities and emancipatory potential of its articulation, for example: The Politics, Ethics and Political Potential of New Materialist Archaeologies; Slowing down Multiscalar Analysis: Entangling Micro and Macro historical approaches; Theorizing “care” in archaeological practice (from analytical methods, to disciplinary labor relations); Slow Collaboration in an Accelerating Academic Structure; Fast Effects and The Anthropocene; Archaeologies of Tempo and Rhythm.
Proposals for sessions may include up to 12 papers at 20 minutes in length each. Each session proposal should include a 250-word abstract and a title at time of registration. If you are co-organizing a session, only ONE organizer should submit the session when they register. All TAG sessions will be open sessions, meaning colleagues can propose a paper for your session. We encourage participants to reach out to session organizers about their interest BEFORE submitting a paper to their sessions.
Please check the “Sessions and Abstracts” page for a current list of proposed/accepted sessions.
ALL SESSION PROPOSALS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY January 15th, 2019.
Proposals for 20-minute papers should include a title, list of authors, and a 250-word abstract. Authors who wish to participate in an existing session should contact the session organizers directly. If the paper is not proposed as part of a session (i.e. a General Submission), the conference organizers will assign the paper to an appropriate session (in coordination with session organizers) or create a new session for papers of a similar topic.
ALL PROPOSED PAPERS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY March 1st, 2019.
We invite artist proposals for artworks related to the topic(s) of “slow archaeology,” broadly construed. Please fill out the registration form, and provide a title and description of your proposed work. Given the unique needs of artist proposals, please contact us directly to help coordinate, and for information regarding exhibition space and resources available to facilitate your proposal.
ALL ARTIST PROPOSALS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY January 15th, 2019.
For more information, contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Connected Communities in time: Temporality in research with communities
Wednesday, 5 December 2018 from 13:00 to 14:00 (GMT)
School of Education
35 Berkeley Square
BS8 1JA Bristol
This event is part of the School of Education's 'Bristol Conversations in Education' seminar series.
Speaker: Dr Bradon Smith
“…community is denied contemporary being-ness, always deferred, lost, projected into the future, the past” (Studdert 2006)
This work-in-progress seminar will focus on a current project looking at the research projects which comprised the Connected Communities programme – a major UK research council funded programme of research with and about communities. This project aims to address the question of how academic knowledge about ‘community’ has been developed through the programme. To focus this very broad question, I take the position that a distinctive contribution of the Connected Communities programme has been, among other contributions, to place ‘community’ in time.
I will ask: how have the projects of the Connected Communities programme framed the relationship between communities and temporality? Taking a set of projects explicitly engaging with temporality, or predominantly concerned with the pasts or futures of communities, I will argue that projects within the programme have resisted an ontology of community which frames it as a static ‘thing in the world’, an easily identifiable and locatable object, and instead have insisted on the various and dynamic temporalities of communities.
Nordic Geographers Meeting 2019
(Trondheim, Norway, June 16-19, 2019)
EXPLORING URBAN TEMPORALITIES
Dr. Tatiana Fogelman, Dr. Linda Lapina, Prof. David Pinder, Prof. Garbi Schmidt;
Roskilde University, Denmark
Dr. Bahar Sakizlioglu; University of Leicester, UK
With the relationship between the present and the future at its core, sustainability is shot through with the temporal. Yet, temporal concerns have rarely been systematically addressed in sustainability research, including critical scholarship on politics of sustainability. Departing from a broad understanding of sustainability centered on the social and the urban, this session explores how time operates within and constitutes life in the city in uneven, multifold ways.
Recently, time has been given more sustained attention as a modality of power with cultural and material effects that impinges on and is worked through in everyday life (Bastian, 2014; Bear, 2016; Birth, 2017; Huebener, 2015; Sharma, 2013, 2014). This session builds on research that conceives time not as a static and linear but as dynamic, emerging through social relations involving human and nonhuman actors (Bastian, 2011; Birth, 2014; Neimanis & Walker, 2014; Rahman, 2015; Rossini & Toggweiler, 2017). It also expands on the work on rhythms and temporal choreographies as constitutive of everyday urban life (Sharma & Towns, 2016). The goal is to continue unraveling temporal politics (e.g. Sharma 2014), exploring how different constructions of time produce and are produced by different forms of relationality and sociality.
Seeking to address how complex and divergent temporalities structure urban life, and are enacted in cities, we invite papers that address (amongst other topics) the following:
- Waste and temporality
- Rhythms and politics of sustainability
- Difference, community & temporal belonging
- Temporality and circular economies
- Nonhuman temporalities
- Time, memory and urban change
- Temporality and affect
- Grassroots (or alternative) urban temporalities
Paper abstracts should be submitted by e-mail to Linda (email@example.com) and Tatiana (firstname.lastname@example.org) by December 15, 2018. Abstracts should be no longer than 250 words, in plain text, and saved in Word format. They should contain name of the session, title of the paper, author’s name, e-mail and institutional affiliation and abstract. Authors of accepted abstracts will be notified by the session conveners by January 15, 2019.
Bastian, M. (2011). The contradictory simultaneity of being with others: Exploring concepts of time and community in the work of Gloria Anzaldúa. Feminist Review, 97, 151–167.
Bastian, M. (2014). Time and community: A scoping study. Time & Society, 23(2), 137–166.
Bear, L. (2016). Time as Technique. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102313-030159
Birth, K. K. (2014). Non-Clocklike Features of Psychological Timing and Alternatives to the Clock Metaphor. Timing & Time Perception, 2(3), 312–324.
Birth, K. K. (2017). Time Blind. Problems in Perceiving Other Temporalities. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Huebener, P. (2015). Timing Canada: The Shifting Politics of Time in Canadian Literary Culture. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.
Neimanis, A., & Walker, R. L. (2014). Weathering: Climate change and the “thick time” of transcorporeality. Hypatia, 29(3), 558–575.
Rahman, S. A. (2015). Time, Memory and the Politics of Contingency. New York and London: Routledge.
Rossini, M., & Toggweiler, M. (2017). Editorial: Posthuman Temporalities. New Formations, 92(May), 5–10.
Sharma, S. (2013). Critical Time. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 10(2–3), 312–318.
Sharma, S. (2014). In the Meantime. Temporality and Cultural Politics. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Sharma, S., & Towns, A. R. (2016). Ceasing Fire and Seizing Time: LA Gang Tours and the White Control of Mobility. Transfers, 6(1), 26–44.
Our curated listing of events and news related to time, temporality and social life.