jump to navigation

Geographies of Sexualities (Call for Papers: Special Issue of the Journal of Lesbian Studies) Outubro 25, 2018

Posted by paulo jorge vieira in academia, geografias, geografias das sexualidades, geographies of sexualities, lgbt no mundo, teoria e epistemologia da geografia, Uncategorized.
Tags:
add a comment

Call for Papers: Special Issue of the Journal of Lesbian Studies

Geographies of Sexualities

 

Guest Editor: Emily Kazyak

Email address: ekazyak2@unl.edu

Abstract deadline: November 1, 2018

Questions of geography, space, and location are integral to sexuality scholarship.  For instance, scholars have asked: How do LGBTQ+ identities, communities, and activism form in cities? How are rural areas, contrary to popular assumptions, also spaces where LGBTQ+ identities, communities, and activism occur? What role do LGBTQ+ neighborhoods play in the changing nature of cities? How do LGBTQ+ people build intentional communities? How does gender matter insofar as the migration patterns and residential choices for lesbian women and gay men often look different? How do race, class, and gender matter in LGBTQ+ urban spaces? More global and transnational perspectives open up questions including: How does migration matter for the ways in which people make sense of their sexuality? How do sexuality and gender identity inform the processes of seeking asylum? How do the categories, identities, and forms of activism that exist in one context or country not always translate to another context or country?

The goal of this special issue is to build on this scholarship and illuminate why it continues to be important for sexuality scholars to interrogate questions of geography, space, and location.

Contributors are asked to consider how binaries related to space, location, and geography inform understandings of sexuality and matter to the identities and experiences of lesbians. For instance, how are binaries such as urban/rural, private/public, center/border, South/North, migrant/native, global/local, salient?

Contributors may also interpret the theme of spaces more broadly and think about how sexuality matters and how the identities and experiences of lesbians matter in or are shaped by a variety of contexts, including but not limited to: families, schools, online communities, courtrooms, LGBTQ+ neighborhoods and communities, and pride parades.

The Journal of Lesbian Studies is an interdisciplinary journal and the special issue invites contributions from scholars in multiple fields and scholars using multiple methodologies and theoretical frameworks to understand the intersections of geography and sexuality.

Submit abstracts of 200-250 words, and a 2-3 page CV, to Emily Kazyak at ekazyak2@unl.edu by November 1, 2018. Acceptance notifications will be sent by December 1, 2018, and completed manuscripts are due March 1, 2018.

Anúncios

Trauma Geographies: Broken Bodies and Lethal Landscapes Setembro 20, 2018

Posted by paulo jorge vieira in academia, geografias, teoria e epistemologia da geografia, teoria social, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

 

The 2018 Antipode RGS-IBG Lecture – “Trauma Geographies: Broken Bodies and Lethal Landscapes” by Derek Gregory

The 2018 Antipode Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Lecture

Trauma Geographies: Broken Bodies and Lethal Landscapes

Derek Gregory
Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies and Department of Geography
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada

We’d be delighted if you could join us at the RGS-IBG annual international conference on Wednesday 29 August at Cardiff University for Derek Gregory’s Antipode Lecture, “Trauma Geographies: Broken Bodies and Lethal Landscapes”. The lecture starts at 16:50 (Shared Lecture Theatre, Sir Martin Evans Building), and will be followed by a reception sponsored by Wiley.

Elaine Scarry reminds us that even though “the main purpose and outcome of war is injuring” this “massive fact” can nevertheless “disappear from view along many separate paths”. This presentation traces some of those paths, exploring the treatment and evacuation of the injured and sick in three war zones: the Western Front in the First World War; Afghanistan 2001-2018; and Syria 2012-2018. The movement of casualties from the Western Front inaugurated the modern military-medical machine; it was overwhelmingly concerned with the treatment of combatants, for whom the journey–by stretcher, ambulance, train and boat–was always precarious and painful. Its parts constituted a “machine” in all sorts of ways, but its operation was far from smooth. The contrast with the aerial evacuation and en route treatment of US/UK casualties in Afghanistan is instructive, and at first sight these liquid geographies confirm Steven Pinker’s progressivist theses about “the better angels of our nature”.

But this impression has to be radically revised once Afghan casualties are taken into account–both combatant and civilian–and it is dispelled altogether by the fate of the sick and wounded in rebel-controlled areas of Syria. For most of them treatment was dangerous, almost always improvised and ever more precarious as hospitals and clinics were routinely targeted and medical supplies disrupted, and evacuation impossible as multiple sieges brutally and aggressively tightened. Later modern war has many modalities, and the broken bodies that are moved–or immobilised–in its lethal landscapes reveal that the “therapeutic geographies” mapped so carefully by Omar Dewachi and others continue to be haunted by the ghosts of cruelty and suffering that stalked the battlefield of the Civil War in the years following Lincoln’s original appeal to those “better angels”.

Derek Gregory is Peter Wall Distinguished Professor at the University of British Columbia. He graduated from Cambridge with a double starred First and was appointed to the faculty there at the age of 22. His early work focused on historical geographies of industrialization and on social theory. He moved to UBC in 1989, where his research has focused on the ways in which modern war has–and has not–changed in the 20th and 21st centuries. After 9/11 much of his work addressed military and paramilitary violence in the Middle East (notably in The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq [Wiley-Blackwell, 2004]) but more recently he has mapped the trajectory of Euro‐American military power from 1914 through to the present.

This has involved two complementary studies. First, a detailed analysis of the changing arc of aerial violence–from the First World War, through the combined bomber offensives against Germany in the Second World War, the bombing of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, to drone strikes over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere–and second, an account of the embodied nature of modern war, centring on the evacuation of casualties, combatant and civilian, from war zones from 1914 to the present. The two projects have collided in an analysis of attacks on hospitals, healthcare workers and patients in war zones and their implications for both international law and the conduct of later modern war. These studies form part of two book projects, Reach from the Sky: Aerial Violence and the Everywhere War and The Purple Testament of War: Bodies and Woundscapes.

Derek’s research involves both archival work and interviews, but he is also keenly interested in the ways in which imaginative literature and theatrical performance can be incorporated into the research process–he was consulted in the early stages of Owen Sheers’ I Saw a Man and Guy Hibbert’s Eye in the Sky–and has developed a series of performance works related his research. He was awarded the Founder’s Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 2006 for his contributions to social theory and human geography and blogs regularly at Geographical Imaginations: Wars, Spaces and Bodies.

 

Andy Kent
Editorial Office Manager
August 2018

(cfp) Here Versus There: Beyond Comparison in Queer and Sexuality Politics Setembro 6, 2018

Posted by paulo jorge vieira in academia, geografias, geografias das sexualidades, geographies of sexualities, sexualidades e géneros, teoria e epistemologia da geografia, Uncategorized.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

 

 

BIGMAPSSSthumpb.jpg

(cfp) Here Versus There: Beyond Comparison in Queer and Sexuality Politics

National University of Ireland Maynooth, 18th June 2019

In sexual and gender politics, the Global North can be seen as ‘won’ and ‘sorted’, in contrast to a Global South that needs support to achieve Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and other sexual/gendered rights. This has specific effects both in places such as Ireland and the UK, where the politicisation of sexual and gendered lives moves ‘elsewhere’, and also for these ‘elsewheres’ marked as ‘unsafe’, ‘unfriendly’ and ‘backward’.  This conference is seeking papers, provocations and discussions that investigate both the creation of the binaries of here/there, Global North/Global South in terms of sexual and gender politics, legalities and geographies.

Academics, activists, policy makers and all who are interested are invited to submit a proposal to contribute to this one-day event. Contributions can take multiple forms, including presentations, films and artistic expressions.

It is anticipated that the day will be used to create a proposal for a special issue.

Accessible buildings will be used and there will be a sliding scale for registrations, including a free option for those who cannot pay.  For any other support needs, please let get in touch.

Proposals of no more than 250 words should be submitted here by Friday 30th November 2018: https://goo.gl/forms/Qjy7hC3tiE8EFSRM2.

 For further information please contact Kay Lalor k.lalor@mmu.ac.uk or Kath Browne Kath.Browne@mu.ie

FIFTY-YEARS ON: The Right to the City Janeiro 24, 2017

Posted by paulo jorge vieira in academia, activismo, cidades, geografias, teoria e epistemologia da geografia, teoria social, Uncategorized.
Tags: ,
add a comment

droit_a_la_vill_390

FIFTY-YEARS ON: The Right to the City

Andy Merrifield

2017 marks the Golden Jubilee of Henri Lefebvre’s Right to the City, his “cry and demand” for a more participatory and democratic city life. It’s a cause both to celebrate and commiserate. But celebration and commiseration have typically been part and parcel of the Left’s dialectic, a dialectic that cuts inside us as people as well as political subjects. For everyone concerned about the fate of our cities, before us now lies a massive expansion of urban life across the planet, an opening up of urban horizons and frontiers, matched by a closing of the political mind, a withering of the established political will.

Ours is an urban society, set to be evermore so during the decades to come; yet political leaders almost everywhere are putting up walls, cowering before provincial smallness rather than embracing cosmopolitan vastness. When Lefebvre long ago spoke of “planetary urbanisation,” he did so because he thought the scope and possibility for the right to the city might enlarge, that our narrative about cities might become bigger and more inclusive. The right to the city needed to flourish within this immensity, he said, had to understand it, keep its frame of reference and plane of immanence open.

Lefebvre announced the right to the city at the centenary of Marx’s Capital, doing so with a self-avowed “cavalier intention.” Urbanisation, for him, was and still is a “revolutionary” process in which assorted ruling classes played and continue to play the dominant role. It’s they who initiate the drive to totalise the productive forces, to colonise and commodify land, to valorise people and nature. Just as they’ve fracked deep into the earth and power-drilled monetised value from nature, ruling classes now frack into human nature as well, power-drilling value from different aspects of everyday life, from land and housing, from the entire public realm.

Lefebvre, though, never imagined that urbanisation would be everywhere, that bricks and mortar, freeways and highways would predominate every which way, that all green space would turn grey; neither was he saying that cities would quantitatively overwhelm the planet. (That’s why he would have been radically at odds with the empirics of UN-Habitat’s “Urban Age” thesis.) Rather, as his commemoration of Marx’s Capital implies, he was warning of the closing of the circle of a particular form of post-war capitalism, one that defines itself less through a model of industrial or agricultural production and more and more through an actual production of space.

This system produces planetary geography as a commodity, as a pure financial asset, using and abusing people and places as strategies to accumulate capital. The process embroils everybody, no matter where; even when it doesn’t embroil, when it abandons people and places, it embroils. Urban society today is tantamount to the progressive production of evermore frackable spatial units. In a way, I like to think Lefebvre was hoping his thesis would become untrue, that the circle can never be complete, that it has to stop, or else be diverted, even if there’s no going back, that urban society, like it or not, is here to stay.

Urban society is thus the battle ground for new forms of radical and progressive politics: it has to be. Lefebvre affirmed this not out of personal whim: capitalism affirmed it out of historical necessity, as our “objective” reality, as an arena in which we all must now engage, willy-nilly. His most explicit reference to planetary urbanisation came later in life, in a valedictory essay from 1989, “Quand la ville se perd dans une métamorphose planétaire,” published two years before his death.

His precise language here is worth pondering on for a moment. Menace stalks us, Lefebvre says; not so much of “planetary urbanisation” but of “the planetarisation of the urban” (“la planétarisation de l’urbain”). The ordering is telling. For the urban doesn’t so much spread as it becomes the vortex for sucking in everything the planet offers: its land and wealth, its capital and power, its culture and people—its dispensable labour-power. It’s this sucking in of people and goods, of capital and information that fuels the urban machine, that makes it so dynamic as well as so destabilising, because its energising and totalising force “expulses” (expels) people, “secretes” what Lefebvre calls a “residue.” This expulsion process makes urban space expand, lets it push itself out, has it further entangle rural space, and disentangle rural life.

Lefebvre says every big system leaves a residue that escapes it, that is chewed up and spat out by it. Every whole leaves a remainder. It’s an idea most forcefully articulated in Metaphilosophy, Lefebvre’s dense takedown of traditional philosophy, published a couple of years prior to The Right to the City. In Metaphilosophy, Lefebvre says that totalisations like global capitalism always exhibit leakiness, have internal contradictions that both structure and de-structure. Totalisation can never be total; it always secretes and expels a “residual element,” its Other. There’ll always be people who don’t fit into any whole, who don’t want to fit in, who aren’t allowed to fit in. They’re the stuff left over after all the metrics are totted up, after everything has seemingly been accounted for: le reste after la somme. They’re the philosophical anti-concepts, an affirmation of remainders, of marginal dregs, a growing planetary constituency.

Residues are people who feel the periphery inside them, who identify with the periphery, even if sometimes they’re located in the core. Residues exist in the world of work: precarious and downsized workers, informal and gig economy workers, petty service sector and agricultural workers—residues are workers without regularity, without salaries and security, without benefits and pensions; they’re workers without any real stake in the future of work.

Residues are refugees rejected and rebuked, profiled and patrolled no matter where they wander. They’re displacees, people forced off the land, thrown out of their housing (by impersonal property markets and violent eviction), whose homes have been repossessed, whose living space teeters on the geographical and economic edge. Residues come from the city as well as the countryside and congregate in a space that’s often somewhere in-between, neither traditional city nor traditional countryside. I call this somewhere in-between the global banlieue; I mean it literally and metaphorically, as a concrete and potential space, as a place of political encounter, one not yet fully glimpsed.

Resides are the NINJA (No Income, No Job, No Asset) generation; Greeks who feel the brunt of the Troika austerity initiatives; dispossessed Arab and African youth in French suburbs; Detroiters beholden to “Emergency Managers”; Palestinians lobbing rocks at Israeli tanks; Rojava Kurds in northern Syria; Indignados on the streets of Spain; “June Days” Brazilians protesting public transport hikes; occupiers in Istanbul’s Gezi Park; Umbrella kids in Hong Kong’s Occupy Central; Nuitards staked out around Paris’s Place de la République. The list goes on, and on.

The spirit of Metaphilosophy gets worked through The Right to the City. Planetary urbanisation is itself a metaphilosophical category, a will to totalise, a discontinuity within continuity, a difference in repetition, a breakdown of old industrial society, and its supersession—its overcoming—by a new spatial form: diffusive, unbound and apparently planetary in its reach, beyond any city-rural breach. Thus a profound existential problem is displaced onto the plane of urban society where it now transpires as a complex political dilemma, an attempt to forge a new humanitarianism out of the “bad side” of capitalist development. Capitalism’s cutting edge is a bleeding edge for ordinary people.

While planetary urbanisation has to be a theory trying to figure out totalisation under contemporary capitalism, it shouldn’t itself be a totalising theory. Instead, it’s a theory of residues within a vortex, an attempt to piece together a politics of residues, a politics of remainders in the whole. Lefebvre even suggests that the political ante here is to formulate a new “revolutionary conception of citizenship.” Indeed, he says this is really what he meant by “the right to the city” all along. And this is the working hypothesis he’s bequeathed us fifty-years down the line, left us to figure out practically. The right to the city is about residues reclaiming (or claiming for the first time) their rights to a collective urban life, to an urban society they’re actively making yet are hitherto disenfranchised from: “the right to the city implies nothing less than a revolutionary conception of citizenship.”

So many people have been pushed off-limits these days that it’s extended the limit of limits, created a more expansive social space for a new conception of citizenship, for a citizenship still to be invented. In this guise, citizenship lies inside and beyond a passport, inside and beyond any official documentation. It doesn’t express a legal right bestowed by any institution of the bourgeois nation-state. What we’re talking about is a citizenship without a flag, without a country, without borders. At this point I can only label it a “shadow citizenship,” something phantom-like.

Still, many residues in America’s deindustrialised heartlands aren’t interested in expansive conceptions of citizenship. Nobody has ever shown them any, of course, offered them any. Meantime, these residues seem content with more reactionary kinds of enfranchisement; and when somebody promises it them, they jump, they vote Right. Now, there’s a common theme uniting the whole world: People recognising their own disenfranchisement. It has reached desperate depths. But frustration matched with vulnerability has enabled assorted demagogues (religious as well as political) to step in. Some have voiced populist ragings against the machine, created scapegoats galore, any old or new straw target, anything to further their vested interests and political ambitions. And many residues, for want of an alternative, have believed them.

But parochial nest-building is doomed over the longer term, retrogressive in our age where human interconnectivity has broadened and deepened. To see the world through the lens of planetary urbanisation thus has certain distinct advantages. After all, it’s a viewpoint expressive of commonality rather than difference, a mutually shared planet in which people who look different, who talk different from one another, who don’t know one another, who may even hate one another, have more in common than they might think.

That shared experience is an ever-growing mutuality of disadvantage and despair, of suffering and perhaps hope. There’s affinity even if it’s rarely acknowledged. The right to the city has to help us identify how this affinity gets recognised, how it gets mediated, undermined, upended by forces upending the planet, forces that work together, that throw everybody into a scary mix. The right to the city has to help us create new forms of organisation, new institutions that leap across the nationalist divide. How to invent a new, more “hospitable” form of citizenship that nourishes people’s sense of identity without crushing other people’s identity? How can people—residues—express and become themselves through their connection to urban society?

Jacques Derrida once wondered whether it was possible to define a modern cosmopolitanism that bypassed the nation-state. His response is uncannily similar to Lefebvre’s. Yes, Derrida said, it was and still is possible: through relatively-autonomous cities, independent from any state, separate nodes allied to one another through “forms of solidarity to be invented.” We’re still trying to invent this solidarity; so far it has alluded the Left. But Derrida urges us to make “yet another effort.” He uses an intriguing phase to describe the nemesis of disenfranchisement and dispossession: “villes-refuges”—“cities of refuge” (or sanctuary cities)—crucibles for a new kind of unconditional citizenship.

This ideal actually prevailed in 5th-Century Greece, voiced by Pericles, Athens’ first citizen, in his famous “Funeral Oration,” recounted by Thucydides in Peloponnesian War. Pericles commemorated Athenian war dead and wanted its citizens to remember how their system of government had “a different attitude than its neighbours towards military security.” Theirs was based on openness not closure, discussion not denial. “Our city is open to the world,” Pericles proclaimed, and Athenians should have “a confidence of liberality.” “We have no periodical deportations,” he said. “The greatness of our city brings it about that all good things from all over the world flow into us.” Athens was a paragon of urban citizenship everywhere, “a city that’s the school of all Greece.”

Five centuries on, the Old Testament spoke of cities of refuge set aside as sanctuaries for people, spaces of asylum to protect innocents—and sometimes the guilty: “These towns will be cities of refuge,” The Book of Numbers said (35: 15-17), “for the sons of Israel as well as for the stranger and the settler amongst you.” The Hebraic tradition recognises the right to an urban immunity and hospitality that goes way beyond mere particularism, a simple search for unique refuge: it’s a divine hope for a form of urban sovereignty where people could become wholly human.

What Derrida has in mind are cities of sanctuary for writers who undergo persecution because of their art and political views; but he hints, too, that the concept might apply to all displacees and emigres, to all asylum seekers and refugees—writers or otherwise. Might we broaden this notion even more to include residues in general, safeguarding all the rootless and landless effected by everyday trauma, by the ordinary madness of our political-economic system? A place of asylum where people can become wholly human?

“A new sovereignty of cities,” says Derrida, “would open up a novel space for rights which inter-state national rights have failed to open up.” “We dream of another concept,” he says, “of another right, of a potential right of the city” (emphasis added). Derrida knows this is “an experimentation of a right and a democracy to come.” He knows, like Lefebvre, it’s wishful-thinking, utopian, especially since he gives us little sense of what a “ville-refuge” might look like, let alone how it might be achieved.

Yet the concept might be closer to home than he thought. A number of US cities—Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Oakland, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia and Providence—all recently pledged not to cooperate with Donald Trump’s promise to deport millions of illegal immigrants. Across the US, “sanctuary cities” are gearing up to oppose federal government and its immigration agents. Liberal urban bastions reaffirm their intention to defy the Trump administration. At the risk of losing millions dollars in federal support, they’ll act as bulwarks against mass deportation. These cities have no power to bestow “official” rights to people; but they have the power to resist, putting a new twist on struggles against federal government: this time it’s liberal cities not conservative states who counter what they see as unjust federal intervention.

In response to a crisis of political legitimation, the “spectre” of urban solidarity looms; minorities in cities recognise that national and international rights are “out of joint.” In a way, we now need to read Derrida’s idea of “villes-refuges” in conjunction not only with Lefebvre’s right to the city, but also with the former’s earlier Spectres of Marx, where he spoke of a “New International”; “a profound transformation,” Derrida called it, “projected over the long term, of international law, of its concepts and field of intervention.” This New International is “a link,” Derrida said, an affinity, a suffering and hope, still discreet, almost secret, without status or title, contract or coordination, party or country, national community or common belonging to a class.

We’re not yet sure what this International really is; we can’t name it anything positive. But it’s there nonetheless, we know it’s there, hope it’s there, out on the horizon, if we can look that far. We know it’s more needed than ever before, needed everywhere. It’s a ghostly dream-thought of a new status for the city, a right to and of the city, a will to belong to a democratic urban webbing, a solidarity of confederated assemblies interrogating the essence of politics and the role of the nation-state: just what is a citizen of the urban, a citadin(e) of the twenty-first century? Progressives will have their work cut out in this challenging year ahead. Meantime, à la tienne, Henri!…

(cfp) Neoliberal academia and the sexuality scholarship within Human Geography Janeiro 18, 2016

Posted by paulo jorge vieira in academia, geografias das sexualidades, geographies of sexualities, teoria e epistemologia da geografia, Uncategorized.
Tags: ,
add a comment

bierds

 

CFP: Neoliberal academia and the sexuality scholarship within Human Geography

RGS-IBG Annual International Conference 2016 in London, 31 August to 2 September 2016

Session Organisers: Chen Misgav, Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and Thomas Wimark, Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University.

Universities around the globe are increasingly being affected by neoliberal trends (Castree, 2006). The (now not so) new market logic require universities to commodify, restructure and consolidate their activities in order to be profitable (Dowling, 2008), e.g. through closing down or merging research departments and cutting unprofitable courses and research fields. Simultaneously, scholars are becoming ever more exposed to a competitive academia forcing us to intensify our production (Birch, Bond, Harris, Hoogeveen, Laliberte & Rosol, 2012) through individualised self-auditing processes in order to remain within academia (Berg in Castree, 2006). Several scholars have discussed the impact of neo-liberalisation on research production, foremost with a focus on race and ethnicity (e.g. see Berg, 2012; Kobayashi, Lawson & Sanders, 2014). However, less is known of the impact on the sexuality scholarship.

It is now more than 15 years ago the JGHE Symposium: Teaching Sexualities in Geography was held discussing geographers’ engagements with sexuality in higher education (Knopp, 1999). Since then the sexuality scholarship has become an important part of Human Geography with an increasing bulk of literature and research being published each year. Sexuality scholars have been successful in claiming space within Human Geography. This session seeks to discuss both the limits and the possibilities of the neoliberal academia for scholars of sexuality. The themes include but are not limited to:

·        Sexuality scholarship and curriculum in the neoliberal academia

·        Teaching sexuality in the era of budget cuts and consolidation

·        Challenges for minority sexuality students in the individualised academia

·        Postgrad students and sexuality scholarship

·        Postdoc opportunities and sexuality

·        Young academics and the scholarship of sexuality

·        Funding opportunities and policy relevant research

·        Voices from different spaces and places, such as the global North/South, northern/southern Europe

If interested to present a paper, please send a 250-word abstract (clearly stating title, keywords, name, institution, and contact details) to Chen Misgav (chenmisg@post.tau.ac.il) and Thomas Wimark (thomas.wimark@humangeo.su.se) by noon (CET) February 15th, 2016.

References

Berg, L. D. (2012). Geographies of identity I Geography–(neo) liberalism–white supremacy. Progress in human geography36(4), 508-517.

Birch, K., Bond, S., Harris, T., Hoogeveen, D., Laliberte, N., & Rosol, M. (2012). What can we do? The challenge of being new academics in neoliberal universities. Antipode44(4), 1055-1058.

Castree, N. (2006). Research assessment and the production of geographical knowledge. Progress in Human Geography30(6), 747-782.

Dowling, R. (2008). Geographies of identity: labouring in the’neoliberal’university. Progress in Human Geography.

Knopp, L. (1999). JGHE Symposium: Teaching Sexualities in Geography [1] Queer Theory, Queer Pedagogy: new spaces and new challenges in teaching geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education23(1), 77-79.

Kobayashi, A., Lawson, V., & Sanders, R. (2014). A commentary on the whitening of the public university: The context for diversifying geography. The Professional Geographer66(2), 230-235.

(cfp) International Conference on Feminist Geographies and Intersectionality: Places, Identities and Knowledges Janeiro 17, 2016

Posted by paulo jorge vieira in academia, geografias, geografias das sexualidades, geographies of sexualities, sexualidades e géneros, teoria e epistemologia da geografia, Uncategorized.
Tags: ,
add a comment

1st Call for Papers

International Conference on Feminist Geographies and Intersectionality: Places, Identities and Knowledges 

Department of Geography Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

14-16 July 2016

DXT_Barcelona_gay_beach_cafe_0

Organised by:

Grup de Recerca de Geografia i Gènere

Departament de Geografia – Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Sponsored by:

Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (AGAUR), Generalitat de Catalunya

Departament de Geografia (UAB)

With the support of:

Commission on Gender and Geography, International Geographical Union

Institut Interuniversitari d’Estudis de Dones i de Gènere

 

This International Conference is addressed to researchers working from feminist perspectives on gender as well as other identities that play a role in the experience of place: age, social class, ethnicity, sexuality, ability and others. Taking these power structures alone or in mutual constitution, we want to gather as many experiences as possible to account for the current dynamics of power relations and the role of places where they occur. Papers on diverse issues of everyday experiences in different contexts and spatial scales, in urban and rural areas, will be welcomed. All of them should illustrate the relationship between spaces and power structures in a global society that face relevant challenges from an economic, social, political and environmental sense. Theoretical, methodological or case studies papers are of interest.

 

The Conference seeks to build a stimulating forum to exchange ideas and forge new and fruitful international collaborations among researchers interested in gender geographies with an intersectional perspective.

 

The official language of the Conference will be English. Abstracts (in English, maximum 200 words) and keywords (in English, maximum 5) will be sent to 2016GenderBarcelona@gmail.com up to 11th March 2016.

Registration fee: 180 euro (90 euro students) (includes lunch and coffee break of 14 and 15 July). The acceptation of papers will be announced from 1 to 15 April 2016 and the Registration period will be open from 18th April to 31st May 2016.

bata.jpg

(cfp) Geographies of Islamophobia Janeiro 19, 2015

Posted by paulo jorge vieira in academia, geografias, teoria e epistemologia da geografia.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

islamophobia-in-europe

 
Geographies of Islamophobia

 

Call for papers for the RGS-IBG Annual Conference, Exeter, 2-4 September 2015
Sponsored by the Geographies of Justice Research Group
This session focuses on geographies of Islamophobia and the complex ways that people who are perceived to be of Muslim faith experience marginalisation, exclusion and discrimination in specific places and at different times. We are interested in exploring the spatial patterning of Islamophobia, its relation to different spaces and times (including its relationship to the discipline of geography), its use in both policy-relevant and theoretical research, and the varying ways in which it is experienced, encountered and resisted by different social groups.
We welcome a diversity of theoretical, conceptual and empirical papers on any aspect of geographies of Islamophobia and we particularly encourage papers that explore some of the following themes:
  • Islamophobia, social (in)justice and institutional discrimination (e.g. in schools, colleges, universities, prisons or other institutional contexts)
  • Rural, suburban and inner city experiences of Islamophobia
  • Islamophobia and the academic discipline of human geography
  • The interplay between Islamophobia and the racialization of religion
  • The gendering, sexualisation and racialization of Islamophobia
  • Geopolitics and/of Islamophobia
 
Organisers: Peter Hopkins and Katherine Botterill, Newcastle University, England, UK
 
Those interested in presenting a paper in this session are asked to send a title and short abstract to Peter Hopkins (peter.hopkins@ncl.ac.uk) by Monday 9th February 2015.

espaços queer e cinema Julho 30, 2013

Posted by paulo jorge vieira in activismo, cidades, geografias das sexualidades, LGBT em portugal, lgbt no mundo, teoria e epistemologia da geografia.
Tags:
1 comment so far

boy_eating_the_birds_food

A 17ª edição do festival Queer Lisboa terá a sua secção Queer Focus dedicada às questões relacionadas com cidade e sexualidade. Estarei por lá participando no debate. Aqui fica uma ideia do programa desta secção.

“Esta secção pretende oferecer um olhar à relação entre as diferentes realidades pessoais e comunitárias de indivíduos queer, com as políticas sociais e os efeitos da crise económica e da gentrificação que afectam o mundo nos dias de hoje.

Destaque neste programa para a estreia da longa-metragem grega Boy Eating the Bird’s Food(Grécia, 2012, 80’), um arrojado e comovente retrato do percurso de um jovem que perde tudo, na Atenas de hoje. Esta secção contará também com um debate que procurará abordar estas questões enquadradas na realidade portuguesa.

Programação completa da Secção Queer Focus:
The 727 Days without Karamo (Áustria, 2013, 80’), de Anja Salomonowitz
Boy Eating the Bird’s Food (Grécia, 2012, 80’), de Ektoras Lygizos
Gut Renovation (EUA, 2012, 82’), de Su Friedrich
Mondomanila (Filipinas, 2012, 75’), de Khavn
Wildness (EUA, 2012, 74’), de Wu Tsang

 

 

espacialidades religiosas Julho 11, 2013

Posted by paulo jorge vieira in geografias, teoria e epistemologia da geografia.
add a comment

simposio festas

“ENCONTRO COM 100 MIL” Junho 18, 2013

Posted by paulo jorge vieira in activismo, cidades, teoria e epistemologia da geografia.
Tags: , , , ,
2 comments

manif-rio1

partilho aqui um texto de Rogério Haesbaert sobre as manifestações – com referência especial neste caso do Rio de Janeiro – que estão a acontecer um pouco por todo o território brasileiro. uma leitura apurada, e sentida, de um dos mais interessantes cientistas sociais brasileiros.

ENCONTRO COM 100 MIL

Saí de casa só, mas confiante num grande encontro (só não imaginava com 100 mil). A princípio, a frustração: uma Cinelândia quase vazia. O endereço era outro, o começo, “sagrado”, era junto à igreja da Candelária. Pra minha satisfação, encontro com Sergio, colega de universidade, e dois alunos (depois viriam muitos outros). Seguimos em direção aos manifestantes, que já estavam no meio da avenida Rio Branco. O barulho, escutado de longe e ecoando pelo desfiladeiro de edifícios, anunciava o peso da multidão. Multidão que se revelaria logo, um pouco, no sentido de Antonio Negri, um conjunto polifônico de poder e desejo. Desejos específicos de combater a deficiência (e o preço) de serviços que deveriam ser públicos (com o paralelo investimento preferencial em megaeventos), a violência generalizada (da polícia à política) e o cinismo da mídia (que em uma semana passou de bandidos para quase heróis em sua referência aos manifestantes). Desejo também mais genérico de um país, ou melhor, de um MUNDO diferente (apesar de deslocados “sou brasileiro, com muito orgulho…”), de um fazer política diferente (revelado no rechaço até mesmo a partidos políticos mais decentes, presentes na passeata). Bandeiras não faltam. Mas também faltam bandeiras. Sobram cartazes. Sobra criatividade, espontaneidade. Sobra festa (até funk, de que nunca gostei, ouvi e acompanhei). E alegria contagia. Jovens redescobrem seu poder de ocupar as ruas, refazer a cidade, de retomar/retornar ao público. A grande mídia voltou atrás e transformou vândalos em pacifistas, passou a entrevistar manifestantes e a tentar (em vão, pois ela também é alvo) entender o que queriam. Até a Veja, bastião do conservadorismo nacional, mudou de rumo! (mudou?) O grande risco, nessas horas, é o oportunismo. Todos, agora, de repente, defendem o movimento. Que cresceu, nesses novos tempos, graças à mobilização-relâmpago que só as redes sociais via internet permitem. Isso assusta, tem um grau de imprevisibilidade e insegurança (para a política tradicional) que ninguém domina. É um “novo” poder do povo? Sim, mas sem exagero. Assim como brota de modo muito mais fácil, também pode ser manobrado para vários lados. Todo cuidado é pouco. Volto para casa como se estivesse voltando da passeata de 1 milhão pelas diretas já, na avenida Presidente Vargas. Mas não, já se foram quase 30 anos e o mundo é outro. O que há de novo, hoje, para que eu acredite que teremos mais força? Será o jovem que traz um cartaz defendendo também os jovens turcos, do outro lado do mundo? Será o estudante, do meu lado que, instantaneamente, pelo celular, convoca muitos outros para a manifestação e que, se o transporte deixar (os corpos ainda andam na mesma – ou menor – velocidade), chegarão em poucos minutos? Será a espontaneidade das diferenças, que faz uma aluna apresentar com naturalidade sua namorada? Sim, tudo isso tem algo de novo, e envolve conquistas (quem, no passado tecnológico dos anos 80, imaginaria mobilizar 100 mil em menos de uma semana?). Os tempos, no plural, é verdade, são outros. Mas e o espaço, esse que dizem que resiste, que perdura, ainda seria o mesmo? O centro do Rio sofre com o “bota-abaixo” para os Jogos Olímpicos. Demolições e remoções como nos velhos tempos. Mas a Rio Branco ainda não foi mexida. E ao olhar para o alto parecem até os mesmos edifícios de décadas atrás. Mas não, olhando pro chão vejo a multidão que é outra, diversa, com cartazes quase como se cada um tivesse feito o seu – mas em individualidades que se encontram, se somam, ainda são capazes de se solidarizar e, a palavra-chave, lutar. A multidão refaz o espaço público mas, mais do que isso, busca refazer a opinião pública, tão decisiva nesses tempos de brutal des-informação. E, se um rumo claro, agora, não está traçado, lutemos para que a liberdade desse debate seja constantemente ampliada – para que, efetivamente, a partir do que já andamos, um novo caminho possa ser feito ao caminhar.

Rogério Haesbaert

(também aqui)