Plenum – a new Geography Journal

Four undergraduate students at the University of Washington Department of Geography have started a new journal, Plenum. The current Editorial Board, Sam Novak, Helen Olsen, Jess Wallach, and Jeevon Durkee, have worked tirelessly since last year to put this journal together, and they have put together a thoughtful, engaging, and wonderful journal of undergraduate work of geographers. They have worked with a Faculty Advisory Board consisting of Katharyne Mitchell, Vicky Lawson, Matt Sparke, Sarah Elwood, and Lucy Jarosz.

Why archives?

At the researcher’s entrance to the National Archives, there are two large statues. The one on the left is of a woman with a large book opened in her lap. In her left hand are several sheets of paper. Is she tearing them out? Is she putting them in? The look on her face doesn’t give a hint. She looks fierce, yet kind. There is a softness in her un-emotional face. Under her feet are written the words:

What is past is prologue

I have had a day or two of wondering whether what i am doing is worthwhile. Is it important? Does it matter? Will anyone read it? And if they do, will i do a well enough job to make my point? Does it matter? It’s not existential angst – it really is a question about the worth of what i am researching.

I met a PhD student from Columbia today. I asked him if i could take a picture of his photo set up (he’s one of the researchers with an elaborate tripod set up). He looked a little confused when i told him i was a Geographer. But i caught myself blurting something out about “historical materialism.” “Oh, so like David Harvey?!”

Someone recently told me that historical geography is dead. Is it? How could it be? Our past is never so far behind us as we imagine…

Labors of love and race

I was invited to participate in two projects this year related to race and diversity in the department. One was directed at growing our diversity and the other was about having discussions about race and diversity in the department (and the discipline more widely). They melded quite nicely together because, as my colleague, Magie Ramirez, and i realized – you cannot have one without the other.

We started a series for our department directed at opening up discussions about race and the discipline more broadly. We brought together our department (graduate students and faculty) to discuss moments in our lives (in or out of the academy) in which we were confronted with issues of privilege. The response was fascinating. We were met with questions about intersectionality and class (particularly), and had delightful conversations about the difficulty of navigating hose in our lives.

We are following up this Friday with an Ethical Pedagogies discussion that we hope will draw the conversation into the classroom setting – addressing difficult moments that we’ve encountered as instructors. I’m really looking forward to it. I’ll blog about that after our meeting.

Today, i attended a luncheon put on by the Simpson Center in collaboration with the Public Scholarship certificate program about learning about race at the UW. It was wonderful and informative.

A few things came out of the conversation today that really has made me rethink my role as a woman of color in the academy. The first is that a director of interdisciplinary studies pointed out that the work that we are doing as a committee is really the kind of work that is a capstone project for an inter disciplinary degree, or even for the Public Scholarship certificate. I was struck by this (hours later) in that i have such a love for my discipline and my department more generally that i have not even thought about it as a “project” so much as contributing to my department as a whole. This disjuncture between my willingness to volunteer and the worth (cha-ching!) of the work that we are doing as a committee had never occurred to me.

I became involved because i care deeply about the success and worth of my discipline. And yet, i am reminded, yet again, that here we are, three graduate students of color (all women) and two faculty (also women) working so furiously to bring about the kinds of conversations that we think will make our department, and our discipline, stronger in its research,  pedagogy, and openness in ways that are perhaps so far beyond the scope of our prescribed roles in academia. This is not about tooting our horns, so much as realizing that we have taken on a task that is far beyond the scope of “typical” commitment to the department.

Further, i am struck by the realization that, yet again, we are taking on the role of being the patient ones. We have struggled with people’s difficulties with this process – we are finding patience with the varying speed with which people are willing to confront the privilege of academia, more generally. But i was reminded today that, well, to be frank, how exhausting that work is. A woman from the Communications department said, “I’m not even that old, but i’m exhausted, i’m so tired” with having to take on the task of educating people about race.

But beyond that, what i found so invigorating was the positive response that i got from the group, as a whole. People were excited that we were willing to forge ahead to have these “difficult” and “messy” conversations. I was encouraged to write papers and to bring what we were learning to others to learn from it. And for the second time, i felt validated in the hard work we are doing.

The first time i felt that was when we had a debriefing with the graduate students. They were excited and delighted that we were trying to have these conversations in the department. They want these conversations. They need and desire them. And this is what i want to share with people… so many of the graduate students expressed a keen interest in using this to build TRUST with the faculty. They saw it not just as an opportunity to talk about race, something that can be tough in our world, but that to do it with faculty was such a relief and wonderful experience to get to share with our mentors.

Today, however, i felt it from a much wider audience. They wanted to know more. They wanted to hear about how we were addressing issues of power and hierarchy (yes, we worked with that – we used candy to break up committees and faculty and to put students and faculty into random groups) and how we dealt with discomfort (we made room for all levels of approach – not silencing the direction that people were ready to tackle our big issues from). And they encouraged us to publish.

The faculty that we are working with have heard this from the number of people they have addressed across the campus about how to put together a project like this. There is excitement and interest. But to feel it first hand has been really helpful. I suddenly realized just how important what we are doing is.

This is not intended as a kind of pat-on-the-back by any stretch of the imagination – rather, is an encouragement in the notion that creativity can really open doors to a whole new way of being in the discipline and in academia. We have stumbled and struggled and choked on our own insecurities as we push along this path. But ultimately, this has never been about us or about fulfilling some kind of diversity requirement. Really, this has been a labor of love and race.

As geographers, and as critical scholars, it has been incredibly important to us as a committee and as a department to make the efforts that we have to break the barriers of silence and of privilege to open doors to a new kind of communication – one that is honest and sometimes painful. And i cannot express enough how very encouraging and what an honor it has been to work with the incredible women of the committee and the earnest members of our community to really push all of our boundaries of comfort to be better scholars and better people.

 

UPDATED … AAG Update #1: Gayatri Spivak

Gayatri Spivak gave an impassioned and pointed lecture directed at geographers in just the appropriately theoretically and instructionally poignant ways. She was gently chiding in those moments requiring it, delightfully self-deprecating in others. Her sense of humor peppered the talk, always catching the audience just as they thought they might to start to nod off, not because she isn’t a fantastic speaker but because it was well into hours 9 and 10 of 12 hours of conferencing.

In the past two AAG’s, I have been disheartened by the turn toward Leninism and vanguardism. I’ve written about this extensively (particularly after last year’s AAG in Seattle) and won’t repeat my arguments here. Gayatri Spivak responded to this turn and the more general question of the role of academics within social movements. She reminds us that it is important to nurture a will to social justice. Our jobs, she tells us, is not to be the vanguard, even when asked, rather, to offer what we do have, our  critical analysis and our ability to teach. She points out that individualist self-interest as a social justice project responds to the tyranny of capitalism – it works as a kind of damage control. But she reminds us to think further out. (The AAG Plenary followed and explicitly addressed this issue in multiple ways. I will write about that in my next post)
What I appreciated about her treatment of the question of vanguardism is her addressing the fallacy that Gramsci was a vanguardist. It takes a very poor reading of Gramsci, a lack of historical context, and a severe deficiency in the early texts of Marxism(s) from the early 20th century to read Gramsci in that way. His works, she reminded the audience, are simply a collection of his thoughts about the book he would write when he was released – it was not a book. Unfortunately, he died in prison before he was able to write his book.
Where she stopped short with him is in her discussion of his definition of the subaltern: that according to Gramsci, they are the group that has not achieved the state, that they are without the possibility of reaching the state (she further takes his definition). It is not that the subaltern do not speak, but that their voices are silenced against the state – they are a shouting into the wind of politics (or as Benjamin would have it, into the winds of history). If that is the case, then at what point do they reach a critical mass, a consciousness, whatever you want to call it, that they can finally be heard.
I understand the fascination with, the enamoring of, the notion of a vanguard. Vanguardists can purport to be the voice for the subaltern – the reaching of and for the subaltern to the state. But as any critical geographer knows, we cannot speak for the subaltern.
And it is here that she turns toward the insistence of geographers that we are an interdisciplinary discipline. But, she reminds us, a discipline is something that constructs the subject of knowledge. Real interdisciplinarity, she warns, opens up the work to the incalculable. And while the disciplinary boundaries should be resisted, they should not be discarded.
I cannot do Spivak justice in her eloquence and depth of address, so I apologize for poorly summarized notes and memories of what was a wonderful and thought-provoking lecture. It was a wildly inspiring talk that included a lovely set of clarifications of her writings that really opened up some of the ways of thinking through her work.
Update:
The talk is available as a sound file here. (Thank you Thomas Dörfler from Goettingen)
A video of talk should be available soon here. (Thank you Sara Koopman from UBC)

Cascadia Critical Geography Mini-Conference


Our department
is hosting the 6th Annual Cascadia Critical Geography Mini-Conference. It looks like it’s going to be a lot of fun. The conference opens Friday evening with a plenary panel of Jamie Peck (UBC), Eugene McCann (SFU), and Kim England (UW) on Neoliberalism and it’s discontents at 5:30. Matt Sparke (UW) will be moderating.

So far, it’s mostly graduate students presenting – which is rather exciting as it really  helps, i think, to keep things low key. The University of Washington graduate students, under the guidance of Matt Sparke, have been working furiously to make this conference come off with as few hitches as possible.

So far we have participants from as far away

as CUNY and the UC systems, along with our Canadian neighbors and one visiting scholar from Belfast at Oregon. The conference is free!