The importance of vibrant materialities in transforming affective dissonance into affective solidarity: How the Countess Ablaze organized the Tits Out Collective

Abstract

Affective solidarity is important in resisting forms of gender, race, and sexual inequalities. Previous research has highlighted the role of affective dissonance in building affective solidarity, yet most of the literature has been anthropocentric in its discussion of affect. This paper contributes by showing the importance of vibrant forms of matter in inspiring and building affective solidarity. Using affective ethnographic method, the article explores how an independent yarn dyer, the Countess Ablaze, organized affective dissonance at gender discrimination into an affective solidarity movement called the Tits Out Collective. In doing so, she energized resistance and built a powerful affective atmosphere in the global yarn community. The paper shows how the vibrancy of the materialities accelerated the building of the powerful affective atmosphere. The engagement with different materialities enabled a global community of women to participate in shared resistance while honoring their own subjectivities, something previous work has identified as problematic. The paper also contributes by opening a discussion of the costs of organizing affective solidarity, detailing the intensities of leading such movements, that can be exposing and increase vulnerabilities. Therefore, it may be inevitable that affective solidarity is precarious and ephemeral.

From the nice work to the hard work: “Troubling” community‐based CareMongering during the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…The concept of "troubling" care is also evident in the work of feminist organizational studies scholars, which highlights the importance of creating space for tensions, conflicts, and differences within feminist solidarity movements -movements which we suggest represent a form of caring with communities (Baxter, 2021;Jones et al, 2021;Wickström et al, 2021). Wickström et al (2021) argue that working to connect broader social movements with everyday, embodied solidarity practices leads to questions about how alliances are formed, who is or is not included in dialog, and what transformations should be pursued.…”

“…Acknowledging difference in solidarity movements and when practicing care can be generative, as those involved negotiate their subjectivities in relation to one another and recognize their shared vulnerability, creating potential for major systemic change (Jones et al., 2021; Phillips & Willatt, 2019). However, by exploring non‐traditional caring practices (i.e., CareMongering) in a non‐traditional (i.e., digital) space (Bartos, 2018), we contribute to the growing work on organizing solidarity movements (Baxter, 2021; Jones et al., 2021; Wickström et al., 2021) by suggesting that without a common understanding of and commitment to enacting care the consequences of care may not be positive and may result in both harm and conflict.…”

“…The concept of “troubling” care is also evident in the work of feminist organizational studies scholars, which highlights the importance of creating space for tensions, conflicts, and differences within feminist solidarity movements – movements which we suggest represent a form of caring with communities (Baxter, 2021; Jones et al., 2021; Wickström et al., 2021). Wickström et al.…”

“…Community care is increasingly being organized in virtual spaces and we build on existing feminist scholarship which highlights the often invisible, digital, affective, embodied, immaterial, and material experiences of those organizing such digital communities of care (e.g., Bakardjieva et al., 2018; Clark‐Parsons, 2018; Fletcher, 2019; Nuru & Arendt, 2019). By “troubling” CareMongering, we contribute to the existing work of feminist scholars who have raised questions about organizing solidarity movements (e.g., Baxter, 2021; Jones et al., 2021; Kouki & Chatzidakis, 2021; Wickström et al., 2021) and challenged how care during the pandemic has been valued in the private spaces of the home, communities, social policies, and local and global organizing (e.g., Cozza et al., 2021; Gardiner & Fulfer, 2021; Miller, 2021; Vohra & Taneja, 2021). We also explore how this (under)valuing of care contributes to individual and collective vulnerability (Cozza et al., 2021).…”

The fluid affective space of organizational practices

“…This style of doing affective ethnography has been taken up and enriched with an attention to unexpected moment of awkwardness (Sløk-Andersen and Persson, 2021), critical engagement with moments of wonder (Christensen, 2021), affective resistance (Marsh and Sliwa, 2022), affective oscillation (Resch and Steyaert, 2020), the transformation of affective dissonance into affective solidarity (Baxter, 2021), embodied meaning-making (Pors, 2021), ethical enchantment (Bell et al ., 2021), and collaborative affective ethnography (Parolin and Pellegrinelli, 2023). However, the attention to space/place remains rather under track and becomes more precise only in reference to entrepreneurial hubs co-constructing entrepreneurial identity (Katila et al ., 2019), or cultural events as film festivals (De Molli et al ., 2020), urban art (Michels and Steyaert, 2017), or patient community interactions on Twitter (Vidolov et al.…”