AAG session on Territoriality and Political Violence

Posted on September 22, 2010 by stuartelden

(I have no involvement in this session, but it may be of interest to some readers -via PGSG)

Territoriality, political violence, and armed conflict

Call for Papers
Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting Seattle, WA, April 12-16, 2011
Last Day for Abstract Submission: October 13, 2010

Organizers: Andrew Linke, University of Colorado and Steven Radil, University of Illinois
Sponsored by the Political Geography Specialty Group and the Population Specialty Group

Territorial practices and narratives have come into renewed focus for geographers, peace scholars, and others involved in the study of political violence and armed conflict. Critical perspectives on territory and territoriality in political geography represent a promising conceptual framework that can draw attention to a variety of dynamic spatial practices of state and nonstate actors involved in violent and conflictual politics. For a given case, territorial practices may prevail in particular local spaces and places at specific moments in time (e.g., internecine bouts of violence) or manifest at broader scales (e.g., the framing of conflict in geopolitical discourses). The violence associated with contested and changing territorial designs by a diverse set of actors also have both overt and structural expressions. Research questions at the conjunction of territoriality and conflict may be based on territorial practices, strategies, tactics, or logics as well on the effects and aftermaths of such phenomena.

We encourage both qualitative and quantitative approaches to these issues and especially welcome empirically informed papers. Within the field of conflict research possible paper topics or themes may include, but are not limited to the following:

The role of territoriality in certain types of armed conflicts or political violence:
•    Forced population displacement (refugees/IDPs)
•    Electioneering and election violence
•    Interstate and/or civil war
•    Insurgencies and secessionist movements
•    Genocide and politicide

The production of territory and issues of:
•    Political economy and capital accumulation
•    Human-environment interactions and political ecology
•    Urban growth/decline
•    Power and the state

The spatial logics of territory pertaining to:
•    Sovereignty and security
•    Boundaries and borders
•    War crimes and international prosecutions
•    Terrorism and counter-terrorism
•    Deterritorializations and reterritorializations

Please send questions or abstracts (along with AAG PINs) to Steve Radil (sradil2@illinois.edu) or Andrew Linke (andrew.m.linke@colorado.edu).

Posted in Conferences, Politics, Territory | Leave a comment

Arctic claims

Posted on September 22, 2010 by stuartelden

The conference in Moscow on Arctic territorial and resource claims is receiving some mainstream media attention (i.e. the BBC here).

For more thorough background you could look at Klaus Dodds’s Society and Space piece ‘Icy Geopolitics’; and my Durham colleagues’ maps of Arctic claims.

Posted in Boundaries, Territory | Leave a comment

‘Euclidean space’ and ‘the Treaty of Westphalia’

Posted on September 21, 2010 by stuartelden

I’ve been thinking about how certain phrases which don’t make sense become ingrained in discussions. There is something about the mere invocation of these that indicates (to some) that the invoker doesn’t really know what they are talking about, but (to most) it appears important and insightful.

The two examples that strike me in relation to things I work on are ‘Euclidean space’ and ‘the Treaty of Westphalia’. The first – at best – is a seventeenth century invention that takes Euclid as effectively equivalent to Descartes, and then generalises from his axioms to a description of the material world. Who actually reads Euclid though? I don’t think he says anything like this, and certainly there is no word in the Elements that translates as ‘space’. David Lachterman and Jacob Klein are good on this.

Similarly, ‘Treaty’ (singular) of Westphalia is a bit of a giveaway. It makes it clear that the person speaking of it has never read it, because there is more than one treaty from the peace conference – they were between different parties and said different things. ‘Westphalia’ has become ingrained in state theory and International Relations as some kind of founding moment. There has been a good revisionist literature in recent years – Andreas Osiander, Benno Teschke, etc. – correcting the lazy ways it has been invoked. Yet, I fear there is a danger that we then miss what Westphalia was about, and it was not unimportant. Maybe there is a need for a counter-revisionist account that doesn’t throw everything away in its valid attempt to challenge assumptions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why we write

Posted on September 21, 2010 by stuartelden

I’ve been thinking a bit more about Graham’s post on being productive. He notes that the majority of his recent pieces have been in response to requests or commissions to write.

Looking my last five years of publications, it’s clear to me that my writing is still largely led by ideas I come up with independently, rather than in response to calls or invitations. The key pieces – books and full-length journal articles – are almost entirely led by my interests rather than commissioned. All the books were proposed to publishers, rather than them contacting me. Only a handful of the journal articles were in any sense invited.

To make this possible, I’ve had to turn down invitations to write on things that have not been central to this trajectory. I’ve accepted most, though not all, invitations to speak (where logistics allow), but usually on the basis of my saying what the topic would be. In other words I use speaking invitations to help with the writing – to try out ideas, or to force me to produce something by a deadline – rather than write up what I’ve spoken about.

I should note that it this is not due to the Leverhulme fellowship I’ve held for the last three years. Almost all of the work done with that fellowship has yet to appear – the book The Birth of Territory is almost completely new material, rather than reprinting previously published work. In fact, though it might not appear so, in the last few years I’ve actually submitted very little to journals, concentrating on the book. Academic timescales are such that there is often a long-time lag between completion and publication. And that means if you want to clear the decks to concentrate on a major project I’ve found you have to start saying ‘no’ quite a while ahead, to allow things to work through.

I currently have no articles in review, due, or awaiting revision. I don’t owe any book chapters or other pieces, apart from a short dictionary entry on ‘Foucault and Space’ for the end of the year. I just have three book projects – one authored, one edited and one five-volume collection for which I’m managing editor – to complete in the next three-six months…

I should stress that – in distinction from my publishing post a few days ago, which was intended as general advice- this is very much what I do.

Posted in My Publications, Publishing, The Birth of Territory | 2 Comments

Steve Graham seminar in London

Posted on September 20, 2010 by stuartelden

“Disrupted Cities: When Infrastructure Fails”, London Group of Historical Geographers seminar, 12 October 2010, 5pm; Wolfson room, Senate House, London, WC1E 7HU (via London Political Geography Network).

Posted in Conferences, Stephen Graham | Leave a comment

Ron Johnston on Terror and Territory

Posted on September 20, 2010 by stuartelden

Nice review by Ron Johnston of my Terror and Territory book in Environment and Planning A. From the conclusion –   

The events of the last decade have stimulated a wealth of responses from academics for whom geopolitical issues have presented major theoretical and political challenges, as well as very substantial ethical concerns. Among those, a number of geographers (for example, Colin Flint, Derek Gregory, David Harvey, Neil Smith, Peter Taylor, and Gerard Toal) have illustrated the value of their disciplinary perspective to understanding the contemporary unstable world scene – distant from claims that GIS can help solve all problems through surveillance. Stuart Elden’s book exemplifies that rich vein of geographical scholarship, generated by an unfortunate sequence of political actions and reactions…   

It is an important scholarly work deserving wide and careful reading.With such explorations, we can help students and others appreciate the contemporary terrain and its spatial structuring.

Posted in My Publications, Territory, Terror and Territory | Leave a comment

Lefebvre, rhythms and videogames

Posted on September 19, 2010 by stuartelden

Another application of Lefebvre’s work on rhythmanalysis – Tom Apperley, Gaming Rhythms: Play and Counterplay from the Situated to the Global. Freely available e-book here.

Posted in Henri Lefebvre | Leave a comment

On publishing

Posted on September 19, 2010 by stuartelden

These are a few notes about publishing that I used in the workshop for (post)graduate students and early career researchers. They are based on my experience of editing journals, rather than necessarily my own experience as author. As ever they are not intended as absolute rules, but some things that I hope are useful. Some may appear obvious, but having seen something in the region of 700 papers through Society and Space as editor, plus other journal experiences, I can assure you that people do a whole lot of strange things…

I began with some comments about process – what happens after you submit to a journal? To a lot of people I think this is something of a black box – you send a paper in and then a few months down the line you get a decision. So, I talked about editorial pre-screening (not everything goes to review); choosing referees; trying to get reports; editorial discussion; communication with author; revision and possible re-review; moving to dealing with the publisher.

A few key things here

  • Do not submit the same paper to more than one journal at once
  • Check the journal out in detail before you submit. We get a strange number of submissions from people who appear never to have opened the journal.
  • All journals have format and style requirements. Use them. Make it at least look like you have written this piece for this journal.
  • Take care with presentation of the paper. If it looks unpolished, there are spelling mistakes, etc. then it does not impress editors or – it gets that far – referees. Make sure references are complete; match the text etc. print the piece out and check that it looks ok. Get a friend or colleague to read it. It sounds simple, but it’s amazing how often pieces that look two redrafts away from being done are submitted.
  • Your work generates the need for reviewers (probably three); you should be willing to review three times as many papers as you submit. Then do the report within the timeframe agreed. This doesn’t half help in terms of your relationship with editors
  • Do not simply send a rejected paper straight to another journal. You should of course be able to send it somewhere, but work on it first. Journal editors often end up asking referees from the previous journal (quite by chance).
  • If you are asked to revise the paper and resubmit it, or it is conditionally accepted subject to revisions, spend time on a detailed cover letter/note on revisions. It helps you in making sure you have worked through everything you have been asked to do, or provided detaile reasons for what you have not done; and it helps the editor in that they can clearly see what you have done.

So, why have you send the paper to this journal? That your head of department or research cluster leader told you that you really should be submitting work to journal X, is clearly a start, but not in itself sufficient! It should fit the journal’s scope, and possibly engage with debates that have taken place there. A good guide for where to submit is where you are reading and referencing work. This is not a hard and fast rule, but worth some thought.

If a general journal, does the paper speak beyond its specific focus? We get a lot of very specific case studies that don’t work for us. If a specific journal, does it fit?

The Bad News

1. You will get referee reports you don’t like; you will be asked to make changes you don’t want; you will be rejected.

2. Most journals get far more submissions than they can publish. They can only publish a fraction of submissions.

The Good News

1. The first bit of bad news happens to everyone.

2. Journal editors want good material for their journal. Despite the number of submissions we still don’t get enough really good material. Most journal editors are really looking for better papers – they want to publish good work. If you produce good work, it will be published.

Some Key Points in Conclusion

  1. Good work gets published.
  2. There is no right or wrong way to work – often quirky papers are more appealing to editors than formulaic ones.
  3. Make it hard for a referee to dismiss your paper. A paper that is well presented, clearly competent, engaging and carefully referenced is going to get a fairer evaluation than one that isn’t one or more of these things.
  4. A paper must be finished before submitting it to a journal; but you equally have to accept that it is going to need revision, and therefore is not finished.
  5. When you are asked to make revisions, do them. There are lots of people with ‘orphaned papers’ – ones that were written, submitted, revisions were needed, but they were never done. It can be difficult to return to a paper you let go of several months ago, but it needs to be done.
  6. Get back up from the floor when you have a rough decision or critical reports. It really does happen to everyone.
Posted in Publishing | 6 Comments

Graham Harman on being productive

Posted on September 17, 2010 by stuartelden

You can read his reply to a graduate student question here. It clearly works for him, and there is some smart advice here. I think what is important – and I expect Graham would agree with this – is that you have to find out what works for you. I don’t work entirely like this, though there are some similarities in places. I think I’ve found a system that works for me. But so many people seem to be stuck in writing habits that are not productive for them there is a real value in advice posts like those Graham is so generous in providing.

Posted in Graham Harman, Publishing | 1 Comment

Geographies of Intelligence

Posted on September 17, 2010 by stuartelden
This looks really interesting…

Call for Papers, Association of American Geographers 2011, Seattle, USA
April 12-16, 2011

Organisers: Jeremy Crampton (Georgia State University) and Trevor Barnes (University of British Columbia). 

Session jointly sponsored by the Political Geography Specialty Group and the Historical Geography Specialty Group.

Call for Papers: Geographies of Intelligence.

News headlines this year were much dominated by two stories: WikiLeaks, a stateless organization dedicated to publishing governmental secrets relating to corruption and coverups. As such, it publishes sensitive state intelligence, and much of the attention it received this year focused on the “War Diary” which were published simultaneously in three different newspapers. These War Diaries provided one of the few glimpses into US intelligence and its part in the prosecution of war. They were also extremely controversial, raising issues of free speech, state secrets, endangerment of troops and the nature of intelligence in a democracy.

The same month the Diaries were published, the Washington Post published the results of a two-year analysis of what it called “top-secret America” revealing that it is spread across at least 10,000 different US locations and that it employs some 854,000 people with top-secret security clearances.

Geography, and geographers, are heavily involved in the production of geographical intelligence, known as GEOINT. What does this involve? What technologies are deployed (GIS, mapping and remote sensing) for what purposes? What are the networks of intelligence, resources and sources of information? How is information shared between countries? In Trevor Paglen’s words, what is going on in the “blank spots on the map?” Perhaps not surprisingly, remarkably little is known about geographies of intelligence, but as both WikiLeaks and the Post story illustrate, this need not be the case. Intelligence can be related to, but is not the same as, war, and geographers such as Derek Gregory, Colin Flint and Michael Heffernan have contributed to our knowledge. Additionally, as records are declassified (eg for the OSS and CIA) the nature of intelligence can be traced for events that played defining roles in history, such as the Second World War or Vietnam. In these cases, geographers often staffed the intelligence desks.

This session invites contributions on the broad issue of intelligence and its geographies. We are interested in papers that trace both contemporary and historical aspects of this question. Topics may include but are not limited to: 

  • Intelligence and terrorism
  • Networks of intelligence/intelligent networks
  • Geographers and GEOINT
  • Geographers and foreign policy/area studies
  • Covert landscapes/sites–where is intelligence produced?
  • Intelligence “in the field”
  • The role of state geographical secrets in a democracy
  • WikiLeaks: a danger or the next generation of journalism?
  • The historical emergence of centralized intelligence gathering in different countries
  • Intelligence, the military, and the state
  • In what ways does intelligence characterize territory, terrain or populations?
  • Human Terrain Systems (HTS) and embedded geographers/geographies
  • Critical historical moments in the production of geographic intelligence
  • How has involvement in intelligence been reflected back in the disciplines of geography and cartography?
  • The role of geospatial technologies (GIS, cartography, remote sensing) in intelligence
  • Geographic intelligence, declassification and FOIA
  • Cryptanalysis

In addition to registering your abstract for the conference on the AAG website, please submit an abstract and Presenter Identification Number (PIN) to either Jeremy Crampton (jcrampton@gsu.edu) or Trevor Barnes (tbarnes@geog.ubc.ca) no later than 12th October 2010.

Posted in Conferences, Jeremy Crampton, Politics | 1 Comment