Sponsored Sessions

Spaces of Struggle 2: Feminist Legacies and New Frameworks in Planning

Type: Paper Session
Sponsor Groups: Urban Geography Specialty Group, Sexuality and Space Specialty Group, Geographic Perspectives on Women Specialty Group
Date: April 10, 2018
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:40 AM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Grand Couteau, 5th Floor
Organizers: Sarah Gelbard (sarah@gelbard.ca); Bri Gauger
Chairs: Sarah Gelbard

Description
Feminism has recently reclaimed a share of discourse unparalleled for several decades, as the term holds a prominent place in popular culture and is foregrounded in surging activist movements that use gender as a rallying point for resistance against social, racial, and economic injustice. From the neighborhood level to the global stage, renewed debates over feminist definitions and goals signal the need for a conversation in planning that reflects on the past, takes stock of the present, and examines possibilities for the future.

Despite a 40-year legacy of feminist scholarship in planning, the discipline continues to struggle to meaningfully address feminist concerns. Affirmative action, gender mainstreaming, and the few other gender policy trends tend to collapse feminist discourse in planning to issues of gender equality. While these interventions may have improved the built environment and career chances for some women, they have sidestepped a diversity of other feminist aims and have not radically changed the way planning understands its role, responsibility, or reproductive power.

Feminist scholars point us to the problematic ways in which our socio-political systems have been structured on universalist assumptions of citizenship and the public-private dichotomy. Feminist geographers have highlighted how these issues intersect with the politics of space and have provided key concepts for planning scholars to disrupt several normative assumptions of the profession and to reveal inequitable practices and policies. With the current resurgence of feminist discourse, a new generation of feminist planning scholarship seems to be emerging to address new contexts of meaning and experience and our new/renewed spaces of struggle.

As planners and urban scholars, we continue to struggle with the question “what would a non-sexist city look like?” In conversation with the other Spaces of Struggle Sessions in Radical Planning*, we ask: How can a reinvigorated and radical feminist position push planning past gender-oriented policy reform to meaningfully engage with the political activism and theoretical projects of feminism?

What important lessons and tools can we bring forward from the legacy of feminist planning, whether seen as a political orientation and activist practice, as a theoretical lens and vehicle for critical exploration, or as a set of institutional demands for equal pay and treatment of women in their careers and in society writ large? What critical intersections with queer, black, indigenous, and ability scholarship can helps us address ongoing omissions and failures? How can feminist frameworks and practices help planners address present issues and possibilities and work towards a more equitable future?

* Spaces of Struggle – a global collective of urban scholars and activists studying and amplifying radical approaches to planning and development – is sponsoring this paper session. The sessions collected under this title aim to engage with the many voices who believe radical practice and scholarship are crucial to resisting institutionalized systems and mainstreamed practices. We work collectively to pose critical questions and engage directly with the histories, theories, and practices of urban planning in pursuit of more just and equitable ways forward. More info is available at Spaces of Struggle.

Presenters
10:00 AM – Bri Gauger, University of Michigan“Planning for Feminist Futures: Feminist Practice in the Urban Planning Academy”
10:20 AM – Lauren Andres, Phil Jones & Lorena Melgaço, University of Birmingham, “Geographies of international planning education: ethics, positionality and reflective practice”
10:40 AM – Ragnhild Claesson, Malmö University“Pink urban space for teenage girls: Making stereotyped design within a collaborative gender equality agenda”
11:00 AM – Sandra Huning, “Gender Planning – main road, detour or dead-end street?”

Discussant
Annette Koh, University of Hawaii at Manoa – Urban & Regional Planning


De-orienting and De-colonizing Queerness: Exploring the Spatial Context of Queer Lives Across the Middle East, Africa, and the Global South

Type: Paper Session
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group, Africa Specialty Group, Middle East Specialty Group
Date: April 10, 2018
Time: 12:40 PM – 2:20 PM
Location: Marriott French Quarter, Galerie 2, 2nd Floor
Organizers: Petra Doan (pdoan@fsu.edu)
Chairs: Farhang Rouhani

Description
This session seeks to explore the ways that queer identities emerge in a post-colonial context, caught between orientalist exoticization of non-normative genders and sexualities and the desires of these often highly marginalized individuals for aspirational spaces in which to safely explore and develop authentic communities of interest. A critical element of Edward Said’s orientalism is the frequent failure to understand the underlying power dynamics that have marginalized populations in the Middle East by treating them as exotic and erotic subjects of the colonial imagination. More recently, Joseph Massad (2002) has argued that western scholars and activists who proclaim and export a universalized LGBTQ liberation movement simultaneously produce “homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist, and represses same-sex desires and practices that refuse to be assimilated into its sexual epistemology” (p. 363). In a similar vein, Visser (2013) has suggested that tropes of gay village development based on western historical patterns are not really useful in the South African context.

Presenters
12:40 PM – Gilly Hartal, “Homo-urbanism: Homonationalism and the case of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv”
1:00 PM – Ozlem Atalay, Florida State University, “In Pursuit of (Inclusive) Queer Spaces: The Case of the Middle East”
1:20 PM – Angela Lieber, Florida State University, “Western Scholarship on Third Genders: What does the Gender ‘Trinary’ Do?”
1:40 PM – Petra Doan, Florida State University“Dis-orienting the Identification Problem”


Workshop on Online Engagement for Minority Scholars (Part 1)

Type: Panel
Sponsor Groups: Black Geographies Specialty Group, Sexuality and Space Specialty Group, Digital Geographies Specialty Group, Careers and Professional Development
Date: April 10, 2018
Time: 2:40 PM – 4:20 PM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Oak Alley, 4th Floor
Organizers: Jack Gieseking (jgieseking@gmail.com)
Chairs: Jack Gieseking

Description
This workshop intentionally centers people of color, women, LGBTQ people, folks with disabilities, and other folks who tend to be marginalized as scholars within and beyond geography. We will cover how to create a digital presence, and even work with folks in advance to set up a WordPress with their various institutions or to purchase a website (low cost for academics / especially students = http://reclaimhosting.com/) should folks want. We will mostly focus on the various places to load our work, the politics of open access, and a 101 overview of copyright and legalese in sharing our work. We will conclude briefly by touching on using Twitter to connect folks to your work, how to get into writing op-eds and talking to journalists, and any other topic folks want.

Panelists
Matthew Cook, Eastern Michigan University
Katharine Hall, Dartmouth College
Christian Anderson, University of Washington-Bothell
Naomi Adiv, Portland State University


Workshop on Online Engagement for Minority Scholars (Part 2)

Type: Panel
Sponsor Groups: Black Geographies Specialty Group, Sexuality and Space Specialty Group, Digital Geographies Specialty Group, Careers and Professional Development
Date: April 10, 2018
Time: 4:40 PM – 6:20 PM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Oak Alley, 4th Floor
Organizers: Jack Gieseking (jgieseking@gmail.com)
Chairs: Jack Gieseking

Description
This workshop intentionally centers people of color, women, LGBTQ people, folks with disabilities, and other folks who tend to be marginalized as scholars within and beyond geography. We will cover how to create a digital presence, and even work with folks in advance to set up a WordPress with their various institutions or to purchase a website (low cost for academics / especially students = http://reclaimhosting.com/) should folks want. We will mostly focus on the various places to load our work, the politics of open access, and a 101 overview of copyright and legalese in sharing our work. We will conclude briefly by touching on using Twitter to connect folks to your work, how to get into writing op-eds and talking to journalists, and any other topic folks want.

Panelists
Kerby Lynch
Keith Miyake, UC Davis
Hector Agredano, The Graduate Center, CUNY
Ellen Kohl, St. Mary’s College of Maryland


The Psychic Life of Gentrification I: Unconscious Topologies

Type: Paper Session
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Date: April 11, 2018
Time: 8:00 AM – 9:40 AM
Location: Marriott French Quarter, Balcony L, 4th Floor
Organizers: David Seitz (davidkseitz@gmail.com); Jesse Proudfoot
Chairs: Jesse Proudfoot

Description
“Ultimately, when urbanists use ‘gentrifier’ as a slur, we are often referring to a disposition of the heart.”
– John Joe Schlichtman and Jason Patch, 2014, “Gentrifier? Who, Me? Interrogating the Gentrifier in the Mirror,” 1506

“To put it in the most basic terms, I want to propose that the ethics at the core of… psychoanalysis… is an ethics pertaining to my answerability to my neighbor-with-an-unconscious”
– Eric L. Santner, 2001, On the Psychotheology of Everyday Life: Reflections on Freud and Rosenzweig, 9, emphasis in original

“Techies! Take the Mission! Techies! Gentrify me, gentrify me, gentrify my love.”
– Persia featuring Daddies Plastik, 2013, “Google Google Apps Apps,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ed3i9Srn-M

Processes of gentrification and displacement are often posited as paradigmatic manifestations of urban neoliberalism. Robust and longstanding debates in urban studies have debated explanations of gentrification (Smith 1996, Ley 1986, Slater 2006), the work of intersecting vectors of subject formation in gentrification processes (Kern 2010, Leslie and Catungal et al. 2009, Bondi 1998), and how best to understand topologies of complicity and resistance and locate horizons for ethical and political change (McLean 2014, Marcuse 2015, Schlichtman and Patch 2014).

Much cultural and intellectual work gestures toward the affective and unconscious dimensions of gentrification: the ways in which racial capitalism both generates and exploits ressentiment, alienation and desire in ordinary urban life (Smith 1996); the differentiated and distributed ways that mutual suspicion and paranoia can mete out disproportionate and deadly consequences for marginalized citizens (Lee 1989); the melancholia that remains in the wake of forms of life (quite literally) foreclosed by displacement, both for the displaced and those who “survive” displacement (Schulman 2012, Delany 1999); the work of anger, attachment, and dissident senses of place in anti-gentrification and anti-eviction politics (Seitz 2015); and the ambivalence and guilt that haunt well-meaning, often well-educated gentrifiers and potential gentrifiers, including many urbanists (Schlichtman and Patch 2014, Sachs 2016). While key terms employed in these accounts such as “displacement,” “ambivalence,” and “integration” have long histories in psychoanalytic and affective theory, scholarship on gentrification has yet to fully take up these powerful conceptual tools in order to make sense of the imbrication of emotional and social life in cities (exceptions include Bondi 1998, Delany 1999, Kern and McLean).

Following scholars who have argued that sustained attention to affect and the unconscious is key to developing better maps of how ideology works in the present (Berlant 2011, Zizek 1994), this session aims to create space for more sustained analysis of the psychical and affective dimensions of neoliberal ideologies as they materialize in scenes of gentrification, displacement, and resistance, broadly conceived. How do gentrification and displacement feel in everyday life? What unspoken thoughts and fantasies subtend these feelings? What might the range of differently situated actors in ordinary, fraught scenes of gentrification and displacement need to claim or disavow in order to feel righteous, innocent, possible, or safe? And how could becoming more articulate about such feelings – conscious and unconscious – inform ethics and politics in and against the neoliberal city?

To that end, this session welcomes experimental work on gentrification that addresses the difficult, the unseemly, with what remains unknowable about ourselves in scenes of stratified, contested, ordinary urban life. Eric L. Santner (2001) writes that answerability to strangers, others, and neighbors as incoherent to themselves – as “we” are to our own incoherence – is a capacity for ethical response “at the heart of our very aliveness to the world” (9). We invite work that builds on psychoanalytic and affective scholarship in and outside of geography to zoom in on the aliveness of gentrification and displacement (Pile 1996, Hollway and Jefferson 2000, Sibley 1995, Proudfoot 2015, Kingsbury and Pile 2016, Nast 2002). Scholarship that attends to the slow and rich composition of competing or coexistent forms of urban life – ethnographic work, writing on film or other cultural texts – is especially welcome. Our hope is that better understanding the affective and psychic character of processes of gentrification in ordinary life might provide insights into both the “why” and the “how” of gentrification, as well as how things might be otherwise.

Works Cited
Bennetts, Simon and Daniel Tufts. 2014. “Hamlet’s Nothing: Berfrois Interviews Simon Critchley.” Berfrois: Literature, Ideas, Tea. 13 June.      http://www.berfrois.com/2014/06/hamlets-nothing-berfrois-interviews-simon-critchley/.
Berlant, Lauren. 2011. Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bondi, Liz. 1998. “Sexing the City.” In Cities of Difference, edited by Ruth Fincher and Jane M. Jacobs, 177-200. New York: Guildford Press.
(The full list of works cited can be found by following the link in the session title)

Presenters
8:00 AM – Stuart Aitken, San Diego State University“Living in Gentrified Ellipses … Falling Apart Without Ceasing to Exist”
8:18 AM – Don Kunze, Pennsylvania State University“The Perverse End-Game of Gentrification: The Truman Show”
8:36 AM – Dugan Meyer, University of Kentucky“‘Security Symptoms’: Civil Gang Injunctions and Ambivalent Revanchism”
8:54 AM – David Seitz, Harvey Mudd College, “‘The Story of Right Hand, Left Hand’: Melanie Klein for Anti-Gentrification Critique”

Discussants
Leslie Kern, Mount Allison University
Jesse Proudfoot, University of Durham


The Psychic Life of Gentrification II: Emotional Investments

Type: Paper Session
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Date: April 11, 2018
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:40 AM
Location: Marriott French Quarter, Balcony L, 4th Floor
Organizers: David Seitz (davidkseitz@gmail.com), Jesse Proudfoot
Chairs: David Seitz

Description
“Ultimately, when urbanists use ‘gentrifier’ as a slur, we are often referring to a disposition of the heart.”
– John Joe Schlichtman and Jason Patch, 2014, “Gentrifier? Who, Me? Interrogating the Gentrifier in the Mirror,” 1506

“To put it in the most basic terms, I want to propose that the ethics at the core of… psychoanalysis… is an ethics pertaining to my answerability to my neighbor-with-an-unconscious”
– Eric L. Santner, 2001, On the Psychotheology of Everyday Life: Reflections on Freud and Rosenzweig, 9, emphasis in original

“Techies! Take the Mission! Techies! Gentrify me, gentrify me, gentrify my love.”
– Persia featuring Daddies Plastik, 2013, “Google Google Apps Apps,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ed3i9Srn-M

Processes of gentrification and displacement are often posited as paradigmatic manifestations of urban neoliberalism. Robust and longstanding debates in urban studies have debated explanations of gentrification (Smith 1996, Ley 1986, Slater 2006), the work of intersecting vectors of subject formation in gentrification processes (Kern 2010, Leslie and Catungal et al. 2009, Bondi 1998), and how best to understand topologies of complicity and resistance and locate horizons for ethical and political change (McLean 2014, Marcuse 2015, Schlichtman and Patch 2014).

Much cultural and intellectual work gestures toward the affective and unconscious dimensions of gentrification: the ways in which racial capitalism both generates and exploits ressentiment, alienation and desire in ordinary urban life (Smith 1996); the differentiated and distributed ways that mutual suspicion and paranoia can mete out disproportionate and deadly consequences for marginalized citizens (Lee 1989); the melancholia that remains in the wake of forms of life (quite literally) foreclosed by displacement, both for the displaced and those who “survive” displacement (Schulman 2012, Delany 1999); the work of anger, attachment, and dissident senses of place in anti-gentrification and anti-eviction politics (Seitz 2015); and the ambivalence and guilt that haunt well-meaning, often well-educated gentrifiers and potential gentrifiers, including many urbanists (Schlichtman and Patch 2014, Sachs 2016). While key terms employed in these accounts such as “displacement,” “ambivalence,” and “integration” have long histories in psychoanalytic and affective theory, scholarship on gentrification has yet to fully take up these powerful conceptual tools in order to make sense of the imbrication of emotional and social life in cities (exceptions include Bondi 1998, Delany 1999, Kern and McLean).

Following scholars who have argued that sustained attention to affect and the unconscious is key to developing better maps of how ideology works in the present (Berlant 2011, Zizek 1994), this session aims to create space for more sustained analysis of the psychical and affective dimensions of neoliberal ideologies as they materialize in scenes of gentrification, displacement, and resistance, broadly conceived. How do gentrification and displacement feel in everyday life? What unspoken thoughts and fantasies subtend these feelings? What might the range of differently situated actors in ordinary, fraught scenes of gentrification and displacement need to claim or disavow in order to feel righteous, innocent, possible, or safe? And how could becoming more articulate about such feelings – conscious and unconscious – inform ethics and politics in and against the neoliberal city?

To that end, this session welcomes experimental work on gentrification that addresses the difficult, the unseemly, with what remains unknowable about ourselves in scenes of stratified, contested, ordinary urban life. Eric L. Santner (2001) writes that answerability to strangers, others, and neighbors as incoherent to themselves – as “we” are to our own incoherence – is a capacity for ethical response “at the heart of our very aliveness to the world” (9). We invite work that builds on psychoanalytic and affective scholarship in and outside of geography to zoom in on the aliveness of gentrification and displacement (Pile 1996, Hollway and Jefferson 2000, Sibley 1995, Proudfoot 2015, Kingsbury and Pile 2016, Nast 2002). Scholarship that attends to the slow and rich composition of competing or coexistent forms of urban life – ethnographic work, writing on film or other cultural texts – is especially welcome. Our hope is that better understanding the affective and psychic character of processes of gentrification in ordinary life might provide insights into both the “why” and the “how” of gentrification, as well as how things might be otherwise.

Works Cited
Bennetts, Simon and Daniel Tufts. 2014. “Hamlet’s Nothing: Berfrois Interviews Simon Critchley.” Berfrois: Literature, Ideas, Tea. 13 June.                http://www.berfrois.com/2014/06/hamlets-nothing-berfrois-interviews-simon-critchley/.
Berlant, Lauren. 2011. Cruel Optimism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bondi, Liz. 1998. “Sexing the City.” In Cities of Difference, edited by Ruth Fincher and Jane M. Jacobs, 177-200. New York: Guildford Press.
(The full list of works cited can be found by following the link in the session title)

Presenters
10:00 AM – James Fraser (Vanderbilt University) and Jean-Paul Addie (Georgia State University), “Taking the Inner-City (By Strategy): Social Mix and Settler Colonialism in the Transformation of Neighborhood Space”
10:18 AM – Timothy Bristow and Paul Hess, University of Toronto“Vital Signs: The Aesthetic and Affective Dimensions of Commercial Gentrification”
10:36 AM – Dilruba Erkan, University Paris 1. Panthéon – Sorbonne“Coping with an ever-changing neighborhood: A comparison of Tarlabasi, Istanbul and Stuwerviertel, Vienna”
10:54 AM – Julie Podmore, John Abbott College“Finding oneself, displacing others: Young adult migrations to Montreal’s Anglo-queer gentrification frontier”

Discussants
Jack Gieseking, Trinity College
David Seitz, Harvey Mudd College


Queering Political Ecology – An Opening Dialogue

Type: Panel
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Date: April 11, 2018
Time: 5:20 PM – 7:00 PM
Location: Marriott French Quarter, Studio 8, 2nd Floor
Organizers: William McKeithen (wmck@uw.edu)
Chairs: William McKeithen

Description
“Queerness is not yet here. Queerness is an ideality… We may never touch queerness, but we can feel it as the warm illumination of a horizon imbued with potentiality” (Muñoz, Cruising Utopia, 2009: 1).

If queerness is a horizon, as the late Jose Munoz suggested, then what is the next step for political ecology? We are seeking co-travelers for our open discussion to explore this question – what are queer political ecologies?

In an era of climate catastrophe and confusion, and in a time and place where being ‘other’ is simultaneously – and increasingly – necessary and precarious, what does queer theory/studies or the voices of queer folks offer in the way of alternative thought, theory, strategy, and space? This open discussion is meant to encourage dialogue around these issues, to extend recent conversations around the sub-field (Heynen, N. 2017. Urban Political Ecology III: The feminist and queer century. Progress in Human Geography), and to build a community of engaged folks through which to share our ideas and discuss how a queer political ecology might inform and be informed by our work.

As we think through queer political ecologies, we are hoping to use this session as an opportunity to share and think together. The session will open with a brief panel discussion on the foundations and informative epistemologies shaping what we might call queer political ecology today. However, our goal is to foster an open format in which scholars of all experiences can discuss their own insights and ideas. In this spirit, we will move quickly from our introductory panel to an open discussion. We are excited to use this space as a conceptual springboard to begin collectively building our understanding of queer political ecologies.

Panelists
Rachael Baker, York University
Spencer Nelson, McGill University
William McKeithen, University of Washington
Grant Gutierrez, Dartmouth College


Queer Publics and Counterpublics

Type: Paper Session
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Date: April 12, 2018
Time: 8:00 AM – 9:40 AM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Rampart, 5th Floor
Organizers: Damon Scott (scottd2@miamioh.edu)
Chairs: Damon Scott

Description
This session seeks to draw on a diverse set of papers that explore different ways queer publics and counterpublics have engaged in urban governance, electoral politics, and city planning projects. Emphasis will be placed on drawing out the importance of queer worldmaking and intersectional constellations to bring about more inclusive, socially just urban spaces.

Presenters
8:00 AM – Damon Scott, Miami University“Perverse Landuses: Reconstructing Queer Life on the San Francisco Waterfront in the 1950s”
8:20 AM – Chris Erl, McGill University“There’s a Party at City Hall: Political Parties and Candidate Diversity in Canadian Municipal Elections”
8:40 AM – Curtis Winkle, University of Illinois at Chicago“Identity, governance and healthy places: A comparative analysis of gay commercial districts in Chicago and Sydney”
9:00 AM – John Auer, University of Nevada – Reno“Changing Patterns in Locations of LGBTQ Businesses in Reno, Nevada, 1969-1975”


Tracing Black Queer Spatialities – #1

Type: Panel
Theme: Black Geographies
Sponsor Groups: Black Geographies Specialty Group, Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Date: April 12, 2018
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:40 AM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Napoleon D2, 3rd Floor
Organizers: Christopher Smith (cg.smith@mail.utoronto.ca); Rae Rosenberg; Watufani Poe
Chairs: Christopher Smith

Description
This series of panels aims to generate a robust conversation among geographers and scholars whose research attends to the relationship of Black LGBTQ subjects and the spaces they inhabit, challenge, and (de)construct. With “Tracing Black Queer Spatialities” we invite a consideration of the fruitful opportunities that may arise when Black and queer geographic analytics are held in a sustained and combined dialogue. Emerging within a post-empirical turn within geographic thought (Peake & Shein, 2000), Black and queer geographic analyses attune themselves to spatial formations that do not immediately or necessarily register within a diagrammatic imperative. As such, the organizers understand Black queer geographies as inherently ephemeral spatial formations. With this in mind, such spatial enactments demand a variety of methodological approaches reliant on forms of (re)memory, archival engagement, and ethnographic representation, to name a few.

We invite panelists to consider the following questions, among many others: how might a Black queer geographic analysis attend to the concomitant manner in which capital enables and simultaneously displaces Black queer and trans spatial embodiments and formations? How do Black queer and trans diasporas register as “globally scattered populations not necessarily visible through diagrammatic representation; the Black Atlantic” (McKittrick, 2017)? How has a potential homo-masculinist tendency in early Black queer theorizing obfuscated informative critical hermeneutics such as Black feminist theorizing of space? How might literary and cinematic archives offer spatial clues to theorize Black queer and trans geographies?

Panelists
Sophonie Bazile, University of Kentucky
Cornel Grey, University of Toronto
Rae Rosenberg, York University
Ricardo Millhouse
LaToya Eaves, Middle Tennessee State University


Tracing Black Queer Spatialities – #2

Type: Panel
Theme: Black Geographies
Sponsor Groups: Black Geographies Specialty Group, Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Date: April 12, 2018
Time: 1:20 PM – 3:00 PM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Napoleon D2, 3rd Floor
Organizers: Christopher Smith (cg.smith@mail.utoronto.ca), Rae Rosenberg, Watufani Poe
Chairs: Rae Rosenberg

Description
This series of panels aims to generate a robust conversation among geographers and scholars whose research attends to the relationship of Black LGBTQ subjects and the spaces they inhabit, challenge, and (de)construct. With “Tracing Black Queer Spatialities” we invite a consideration of the fruitful opportunities that may arise when Black and queer geographic analytics are held in a sustained and combined dialogue. Emerging within a post-empirical turn within geographic thought (Peake & Shein, 2000), Black and queer geographic analyses attune themselves to spatial formations that do not immediately or necessarily register within a diagrammatic imperative. As such, the organizers understand Black queer geographies as inherently ephemeral spatial formations. With this in mind, such spatial enactments demand a variety of methodological approaches reliant on forms of (re)memory, archival engagement, and ethnographic representation, to name a few.

We invite panelists to consider the following questions, among many others: how might a Black queer geographic analysis attend to the concomitant manner in which capital enables and simultaneously displaces Black queer and trans spatial embodiments and formations? How do Black queer and trans diasporas register as “globally scattered populations not necessarily visible through diagrammatic representation; the Black Atlantic” (McKittrick, 2017)? How has a potential homo-masculinist tendency in early Black queer theorizing obfuscated informative critical hermeneutics such as Black feminist theorizing of space? How might literary and cinematic archives offer spatial clues to theorize Black queer and trans geographies?

Panelists
Aretina Hamilton, University of Kentucky
Christopher Smith, OISE / University of Toronto
Watufani Poe, Brown University
Malika Imhotep
Emma Flavian
Marlon Bailey, School of Social Transformation
Rashad Shabazz, Arizona State University


Sexualities, Intimacies, Bodies: Negotiating Identities and Futures

Type: Paper Session
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Date: April 12, 2018
Time: 3:20 PM – 5:00 PM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Rampart, 5th Floor
Organizers: John Paul Catungal (catungal@mail.ubc.ca)
Chairs: John Paul Catungal

Presenters
3:20 PM – Laura Pascoe, Bedroom Feminist“Men and the Intimate Spaces of Heterosex: The Journey Towards Embracing Reflexive Masculinities”
3:40 PM – Jacklyn Weier, Illinois State University“Towards Queer Space: Bisexual Experiences and Imaginative Geographies”
4:00 PM – MinJi Gwon, Seoul National University“Queer migration, dislocation, and desire of recognition: the cases of South Korean queer women”


Transpacific Infrastructures III

Type: Panel
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group, Political Geography Specialty Group
Date: April 12, 2018
Time: 5:20 PM – 7:00 PM
Location: The Astor, Grand Ballroom B, 2nd Floor
Organizers: Wesley Attewell (wesley.attewell@utoronto.ca); Emily Mitchell-Eaton; Richard Nisa
Chairs: Wesley Attewell

Description
In recent years, the term “transpacific” has attained new significance as a way of naming and illuminating the two-way “traffic in peoples, cultures, capital, and ideas between ‘America’ and ‘Asia’, as well as across the troubled ocean that lends its name to this model” (Hoskins and Nguyen, 2014: 2). This interdisciplinary field of inquiry has approached the study of the transpacific from a diversity of perspectives. Certain strands have focused on exploring the militarized regimes of imperial and (settler) colonial violence that have “constituted a structuring force” of transpacific world-making and diasporic community building (Camacho and Shigematsu, 2010; xv; Cruz 2012; Espiritu 2012, 2014, 2016; Friedman 2013, 2017; Ly 2017; Man 2017; Yoneyama, 2016).

Others have foregrounded the transpacific as a “geocultural formation at once constituted by and deeply constitutive of global modernity” (Yao, 2017: 81). Still others have traced the geoeconomic flows of capital and racialized labour that were set in motion as part of broader capitalist projects of accumulation and dispossession (Flores 2015; Rhook 2017). Important efforts have also been undertaken to decenter the United States-East Asia axis as the dominant geographical framework for transpacific analysis, pointing instead to other, more long-standing and lateral, yet equally transpacific geographies of Indigenous and Pacific Islander solidarity building (Banivanua-Mar, 2016; Rhook, 2017; Te Punga Sommerville, 2017).

These otherwise distinct trajectories of research are linked in two ways: first, by their foregrounding of the important role played by “everyday peoples in the appropriation, contestation, or deliberation of regional and global hegemonies” (Camacho and Shigematsu, 2010: xv); and second, by the ways in which they all gesture towards the importance of paying closer attention to the geographies of transpacific formations (see, for example, Banivanua-Mar 2016; Espiritu 2016; Friedman 2017; Man 2017; Rhook 2017).

Despite this spatial turn in the study of the transpacific, geographers have been slow to engage with these concepts. We wager, in contrast, that the recent geographical work on infrastructure offers a productive lens through which to map the spatial circuitry of transpacific formations. Following Deborah Cowen (2017) and Michelle Murphy (2013), we adopt a more extensive definition of infrastructure that encompasses both physical structures (such as military bases, transportation networks, and pipelines), as well as “the spatially and temporally extensive ways that practices are sedimented into and structure the world”. We ask: what kinds of tangible and intangible infrastructures underpin processes of transpacific world-making? How are these infrastructures assembled? How are they disassembled? What kinds of life-sustaining and life-eliminating forces are being enabled or unleashed as part of such processes of assembly and disassembly? And ultimately, how can such transpacific infrastructures be reclaimed for socially and environmentally just ends?

Panelists
Laurel Mei-Singh, Princeton University
Sasha Davis, Keene State College
John Paul Catungal, University of British Columbia
May Farrales, University of Northern British Columbia
Wesley Attewell, The University of British Columbia


Queer Approaches, Space, (Secondary) Education

Type: Paper Session
Sponsor Groups: Geography Education Specialty Group, Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Day: April 13, 2018
Time: 8:00 AM – 9:40 AM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Borgne Room, 3rd Floor
Organizers: Thomas Jekel (thomas.jekel@sbg.ac.at); Alex Fanghanel
Chairs: Thomas Jekel

Description
For more than 20 years now, queer approaches have developed across disciplinary boundaries and have also found a distinct following within the discipline of geography. However, after a first discussion of queer topics in higher education in a themed issue of the Journal of Geography in Higher Education in 1999, contributions that discuss possible added values of queer approaches to geography education have been few and far between, and, in the case of primary and secondary geography education, close to non-existent.

This session presents both theoretical and empirical research ranging from scientific conceptions of queer approaches to practical, ethical approaches at primary and secondary education levels.

Presenters
8:05 AM – Michael Brasher, The University of Arizona “Intimate Geographies of Masculinity & Movements to Address Men’s Violence”
8:25 AM – Rachael Cofield, Florida State University“Trans Geography and Public Discourse: Considering Exclusive Space”
8:45 AM – Michael Lehner & Kirstin Stuppacher, University of Salzburg“Doing trans-identity in geography education”
9:05 AM – Jana Pokraka & Inga Gryl, University of Duisburg-Essen“Communitycation: Analyzing multi-level power relations with a spatial planning game”

Discussant
Alex Fanghanel, University of Greenwich


Decolonization Epistemologies: Black Women Creating Space Between the Words

Type: Panel
Theme: Black Geographies
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group, Black Geographies Specialty Group
Date: April 13, 2018
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:40 AM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Napoleon D2, 3rd Floor
Organizers: Sharon Fuller (syfuller@gmail.com)
Chairs: Sharon Fuller

Description
Contrary to conventional scholarly conceptualizations, a black woman’s intellect is not constituted through her assimilation into western ideologies and practices. Zora Neal Hurston captured the meaning of black people’s lives as “complete, complex, undiminished human beings” in her ethnographies of rural southern communities in the 1930s. Such a bold approach during the Jim Crow era undeniably put her academic and literary career at great risk. Using culturally relevant pedagogy, in this interactive call-and response-session, we will discuss alternative epistemologies to how we challenge ourselves to show up differently in the work that we do. Our lived and material experiences will serve as the foundation to examine how we interpellate positive relationships with self through alternative sites of knowledge production such as music, storytelling, movement, conversation, observation, spirituality, and silence.

In reclaiming space nestled between words of intellectual inferiority within dominant discourses on race and gender, we will explore how our beliefs and subjective positioning as researchers, instructors, and scholar-activists creatively produce a particular decolonizing knowledge. Through self-definition and recognition of the value of ideological and cultural difference, in this session panelists will engage participants in a dialogue about the complexity of black women’s lives as complete human beings. A space will thus be provided to discuss how the risks taken daily support our creative and transformative intellectual efforts in the academy and more importantly society as a whole.

References
Collins, P. (1990) Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Giddings, P. (1984) When and where I enter: the impact of black women on race and sex in America. New York: Bantam Book.
hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge.
hooks, b. (2009) Belonging: A culture of place. New York: Routledge.
Hurston, Z. (2008). The complete stories. New York: Harper Perennial.

Panelists
Sharon Fuller, UC Berkeley Alumna
Sophonie Bazile, University of Kentucky
Frances Roberts-Gregory
Chryl Corbin, UC Berkeley
Carolyn Finney, University of Kentucky


Geographies of Sex, Sexuality and Sex Work: Myths, Imaginaries and Realities I

Type: Paper Session
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Date: April 13, 2018
Time: 1:20 PM – 3:00 PM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Borgne Room, 3rd Floor
Organizers: Paul Maginn (pauljmaginn@gmail.com); Erin Sanders-McDonagh
Chairs: Paul Maginn

Description
In the past decade questions about sex, sexuality and sex work have come to dominate media, political and social debates. These debates have seen the tectonic plates of ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’ collide and sheer against one another. There is considerable variation in the dynamics of such relations across national and international boundaries. In the predominantly Catholic country of Ireland, for example, a referendum on marriage equality saw the LGBTQ community granted the same rights as heterosexual couples. In Northern Ireland (NI), however, the Protestant-dominated local Assembly has thus far steadfastly refused to pass legislation on marriage equality five times. The failure to pass this legislation has been due largely to opposition from the largest political party in NI –the Democratic Unionist Party – who has effectively vetoed the issue each time it has to a vote. And, in Australia the current Liberal Government has prevaricated on the issue of marriage equality by agreeing to hold a non-binding postal plebiscite on the issue rather than letting the Parliament decide on the issue.

On the matter of sex work, some nations – e.g. Canada, France, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland – have recently introduced legislation that criminalises the purchase of commercial sex services in the name of protecting (female) sex workers and victims of human trafficking. This legislation was introduced in these jurisdictions following major campaigning by conservative politicians, religious organisations, NGOs and radical feminist organisations often working together. Relatedly, other state actors have sought to prohibit access to pornography by framing the consumption of adult entertainment as an issue that affects social and mental well-being. For example, participants at the 2016 Republican National Convention in the USA suggested that viewing pornography constituted a ‘public health crisis’. In the UK the government has recently sought to introduce age verification mechanisms and regulations in order to prevent people from viewing particular sexual acts online.

All the while, the consumption of online (heteronormative) pornography continues to grow year-on-year as data from one of the world’s largest free porn websites reveals each year. There is relatively little publicly available data on the consumption of non-heteronormative types of porn, although anecdotal evidence points to significant growth in “feminist-porn and alt-porn”. Camming has also becoming an increasingly popular mode of adult entertainment, with an estimated 20,000 performers online in the US at any given time. Even professional adult performers now engage in cam-work (and other forms of adult entertainment such as stripping and feature dancing) as a means of generating supplementary income due to the de-industrialisation of the porn industry in the wake of free online porn hosting sites. New and improved technologies have therefore created alternative possibilities for sex work landscapes.

Sexual and gender identity have also been the focus of much heated debate, especially in the last 5 years as debates about transgenderism have become more prominent. The increasing visibility/audibility of transgender people and issues related to trans rights have, in some cases, resulted in moral panics about trans people being in public spaces and using public facilities, especially toilets. Ultimately, trans folk have endured stigma and stereotypes because of their gendered/sexual identities and have been subject to discrimination and a denial of their human rights.

Advances in digital technology and the ‘app-ification’ of smart phones have had a profound impact on the socio-spatial dynamics of human sexuality and commericalised forms of sexual services. The emergence of dating websites, online escort agencies and personal ad sites, hook-up apps and web-camming for personal and commercial purposes have enhanced the opportunity for direct and indirect intimate and risqué experiences. Similarly, the rise of virtual reality, smart sex toys and sex robots have raised various questions about the future direction of human, gender and sexual relations.

Presenters
1:20 PM – Rachel Wotton, “Sex work, Sexual surrogacy, sexual assistants, ‘compassionate masturbation services’: where in the world are these services being offered to people with disability?”
1:40 PM – Laura Graham, Northumbria University“Reflections on a rights victory for sex workers”
2:00 PM – Lucy Neville, University of Leicester“‘Cleaning up Camden’: Exploring the Sanitization of Sex Work in Kings Cross”
2:20 PM – Rachel Stuart, University Kent“Silence of the Cams”
2:40 PM – Paul Maginn & Ben Radford, University of Western Australia“‘Gagging for It’: Spatial & Temporal Trends in Online Porn Consumption in Australia, 2014 -2017”


Geographies of Sex, Sexuality and Sex Work: Myths, Imaginaries and Realities II

Type: Paper Session
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Date: April 13, 2018
Time: 3:20 PM – 5:00 PM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Borgne Room, 3rd Floor
Organizers: Paul Maginn (pauljmaginn@gmail.com); Erin Sanders-McDonagh
Chairs: Paul Maginn

Description
In the past decade questions about sex, sexuality and sex work have come to dominate media, political and social debates. These debates have seen the tectonic plates of ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’ collide and sheer against one another. There is considerable variation in the dynamics of such relations across national and international boundaries. In the predominantly Catholic country of Ireland, for example, a referendum on marriage equality saw the LGBTQ community granted the same rights as heterosexual couples. In Northern Ireland (NI), however, the Protestant-dominated local Assembly has thus far steadfastly refused to pass legislation on marriage equality five times. The failure to pass this legislation has been due largely to opposition from the largest political party in NI –the Democratic Unionist Party – who has effectively vetoed the issue each time it has to a vote. And, in Australia the current Liberal Government has prevaricated on the issue of marriage equality by agreeing to hold a non-binding postal plebiscite on the issue rather than letting the Parliament decide on the issue.

On the matter of sex work, some nations – e.g. Canada, France, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland – have recently introduced legislation that criminalises the purchase of commercial sex services in the name of protecting (female) sex workers and victims of human trafficking. This legislation was introduced in these jurisdictions following major campaigning by conservative politicians, religious organisations, NGOs and radical feminist organisations often working together. Relatedly, other state actors have sought to prohibit access to pornography by framing the consumption of adult entertainment as an issue that affects social and mental well-being. For example, participants at the 2016 Republican National Convention in the USA suggested that viewing pornography constituted a ‘public health crisis’. In the UK the government has recently sought to introduce age verification mechanisms and regulations in order to prevent people from viewing particular sexual acts online.

All the while, the consumption of online (heteronormative) pornography continues to grow year-on-year as data from one of the world’s largest free porn websites reveals each year. There is relatively little publicly available data on the consumption of non-heteronormative types of porn, although anecdotal evidence points to significant growth in “feminist-porn and alt-porn”. Camming has also becoming an increasingly popular mode of adult entertainment, with an estimated 20,000 performers online in the US at any given time. Even professional adult performers now engage in cam-work (and other forms of adult entertainment such as stripping and feature dancing) as a means of generating supplementary income due to the de-industrialisation of the porn industry in the wake of free online porn hosting sites. New and improved technologies have therefore created alternative possibilities for sex work landscapes.

Sexual and gender identity have also been the focus of much heated debate, especially in the last 5 years as debates about transgenderism have become more prominent. The increasing visibility/audibility of transgender people and issues related to trans rights have, in some cases, resulted in moral panics about trans people being in public spaces and using public facilities, especially toilets. Ultimately, trans folk have endured stigma and stereotypes because of their gendered/sexual identities and have been subject to discrimination and a denial of their human rights.

Advances in digital technology and the ‘app-ification’ of smart phones have had a profound impact on the socio-spatial dynamics of human sexuality and commericalised forms of sexual services. The emergence of dating websites, online escort agencies and personal ad sites, hook-up apps and web-camming for personal and commercial purposes have enhanced the opportunity for direct and indirect intimate and risqué experiences. Similarly, the rise of virtual reality, smart sex toys and sex robots have raised various questions about the future direction of human, gender and sexual relations.

Presenters
3:20 PM – Danielle Hidalgo, “‘If It’s Unwanted, It’s Harassment’: A Study of Sexual Capital and Collective Sexual Life In and Beyond London’s Nightclub Dance Floors”
3:40 PM – Katharine Parker, York St John University“Illicit Sex and the Visual Researcher”
4:00 PM – Chrystel Oloukoi, Harvard University“Governing Through Sex? the Politics of Sexualized Bodies, Landscapes and Temporalities in Allen Avenue (Lagos, Nigeria)”
4:20 PM – Josephine Shearer, “The Impact of Stigma and Discrimination on Mental Health Support for Sex Workers”
4:40 PM – Lindsay Blewett, “Sex Work and Stigma: Experiences of Student Sex Workers at a Canadian University”


Author Meets Critics: David K. Seitz’s A House of Prayer for All People: Contesting Citizenship in a Queer Church

Type: Panel
Sponsor Groups: Sexuality and Space Specialty Group
Date: April 14, 2018
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:40 AM
Location: Sheraton New Orleans, Napoleon A2, 3rd Floor
Organizers: Lia Frederiksen (lia.frederiksen@utoronto.ca)
Chairs: Lia Frederiksen

Description
This panel session convenes a discussion among scholars with expertise on race, sexuality, gender, citizenship, and migration to evaluate David K. Seitz’s exciting new book, A House of Prayer for All People: Contesting Citizenship in a Queer Church (University of Minnesota Press, November 2017).

Perhaps an unlikely subject for an ethnographic case study, the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto in Canada is a large predominantly LGBT church with a robust, and at times fraught, history of advocacy. While the church is often riddled with fault lines and contradictions, its queer and faith-based emphasis on shared vulnerability leads it to engage in radical solidarity with asylum-seekers, pointing to the work of affect in radical, coalition politics.

A House of Prayer for All People maps the affective dimensions of the politics of citizenship at this church. For nearly three years, David K. Seitz regularly attended services at MCCT. He paid special attention to how community and citizenship are formed in a primarily queer Christian organization, focusing on four contemporary struggles: debates on race and gender in religious leadership, activism around police–minority relations, outreach to LGBT Christians transnationally, and advocacy for asylum seekers. Engaging in debates in cultural geography, queer of color critique, psychoanalysis, and affect theory, A House of Prayer for All People stages innovative, reparative encounters with citizenship and religion.

Building on queer theory’s rich history of “subjectless” critique, Seitz calls for an “improper” queer citizenship—one that refuses liberal identity politics or national territory as the ethical horizon for sympathy, solidarity, rights, redistribution, or intimacy. Improper queer citizenship, he suggests, depends not only on “good politics” but also on people’s capacity for empathy, integration, and repair.

Panelists
LaToya Eaves, Middle Tennessee State University
Natalie Oswin, McGill University
Geraldine Pratt, University of British Columbia
Farhang Rouhani, University of Mary Washington

Discussant
David Seitz – Harvey Mudd College


 

Advertisements