Theorizing diverse economies in the context of racial capitalism

Bledsoe, Adam; McCreary, Tyler; Wright, Willie Jamaal

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.07.004

Cited by 54 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They offer practices of ‘reading for difference’ as alternative modes of inquiry that have been taken up across the range of geographic research to problematize singular narratives of critique that only read for dominance at the expense of the political possibility present in actually existing heterogeneity (e.g., Brown, 2009; Dombroski, 2016; Wynne-Jones, 2014). At the same time, it remains important to not set aside the ways in which this heterogeneity is itself structured unevenly, as Bledsoe et al (2019) discuss in their recent work on diverse economies and racial capitalism.…”

Section: Affects Of Critique In Geographical Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeling otherwise: Ambivalent affects and the politics of critique in geography

Ruez

Cockayne

2021

Dialogues in Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars across the social sciences and humanities have increasingly questioned the meaning and purpose of critique. Contributing to those conversations, some geographers have advocated for affirmative or reparative practices such as reading for difference or experimentation that seek to provoke more joyful, hopeful, or enchanting affects, as alternatives to what they perceive as a prevailing forms of ‘negative’ critique. In response, others have re-emphasized the centrality of negativity and revalued negative affects in the context of regimes of racialization, heteronormativity, and coloniality. Rather than taking sides in a debate thus framed, this article develops an ambivalent position that foregrounds multiple senses of difference that exist within affirmative and reparative projects. Drawing on feminist and queer geographic work, the explicitly political and difference-oriented writing of Sedgwick and Deleuze, and queer and postcolonial affect scholars, we argue for critique characterized by an ambivalent and pluralistic attitude toward feeling. Joining those arguing for a pluralization of the moods and modes of critical work, our readings suggest the necessity of a pluralism that refuses any escape from the ‘negativity’ of the social field in favor of an affectively ambivalent engagement with the inherent politics of critique in a plural and uneven world.

show abstract

Section: Affects Of Critique In Geographical Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeling otherwise: Ambivalent affects and the politics of critique in geography

Ruez

Cockayne

2021

Dialogues in Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For Indigenous scholars, such strategies are not only examples of resistance to the imposition of settler colonial legal and property regimes, but respect and strengthen the multiple, nested sovereignties mediating Indigenous relationships to food, land, and community (Coulthard 2014 ; Daigle 2017 ; Simpson 2017 ). These diverse practices reveal insights about land and space, food policies, management practices, and the transformation of space and place within the context of racial capitalism (Bledsoe et al 2019 ).…”

Section: Urban Food Provisioning Beyond the Farm And Gardenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As emphasized in other sections of this article, scholars should also reflect on how different gatherers are affected unequally, due to longstanding inequities and systems of oppression. Uneven systems of power may pave the way to unexpected and fundamentally ambivalent alliances through “latent commons” within the “ruins of capitalism” (Tsing 2015 ), as evidenced by a long history of Black and Indigenous commons emerging in these spaces (Bledsoe et al 2019 ). Tracing the genealogy and geographies of such commoning practices is certain to generate new insights.…”

Section: Urban Food Provisioning Beyond the Farm And Gardenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating land justice through comparison: a US–French dialogue and research agenda

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this discussion piece, eight scholars in geography, urban planning, and agri-food studies from the United States (US) and France engage in a bi-national comparison to deepen our collective understanding of food and land justice. We specifically contextualize land justice as a critical component of food justice in both the US and France in three key areas: access to land for cultivation, urban agriculture, and non-agricultural forms of food provisioning. The US and France are interesting cases to compare, considering the differences and similarities in their colonial and agricultural histories, persistent and systemic race and class-based inequities in land access, and the roles of public bodies and social movements. In this paper, we synthesize literature, share reflections, and offer directions for future scholarship, including a broader comparative research agenda. An important difference we found is in the degree of scholarly attention to race and how it mediates access to land. We also observe that few scholars articulate a clear definition of justice in their work, nor do they share a common justice framework. We hope that this paper contributes to a more robust food and land justice framework for the use of scholars, practitioners and activists.

show abstract

“…Agnew 1987; Huber 2013). Nevertheless, the writings of Baran and Sweezy (1966), Aglietta (1979), and Robinson (2000Robinson ( [1983) have been important reference points; from debates regarding monopoly (Christophers 2016;Moore 2002) and regulation (Dunford 1990;Tickell and Peck 1992) to concerns with racial capitalism (Bledsoe et al 2019;Pulido 2017;Woods 1998). These works developed out of a deep involvement with American capitalism as a site for investigation and object of critique, but they formulated theories that far exceeded the specificities of this formation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Provincialising American Capitalism: From Universal Instance to Contingent Case

Omstedt

2021

Antipode

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article draws on theories of uneven development to deconstruct a set of universalising assumptions in the critique of American capitalism. While these theories have called for more relational understandings of capitalism, there is a tendency to naturalise the United States as an instance of universal capitalist relations. Engaging such diverse thinkers as Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy, Michel Aglietta, and Cedric Robinson, the article identifies three recurrent universals, including: (1) abstraction from the US as the most "advanced" capitalist formation; (2) assumption of American capitalism as developing in a particularly "pure" state; and (3) subsumption of the dynamics of American capitalism under universal logics. Reading these against the methodological principles of Uneven and Combined Development, the article argues for provincialising the capitalist formation that appears the most "complete".

show abstract

Theorizing diverse economies in the context of racial capitalism

Cited by 54 publications

References 44 publications

Feeling otherwise: Ambivalent affects and the politics of critique in geography

Feeling otherwise: Ambivalent affects and the politics of critique in geography

Translating land justice through comparison: a US–French dialogue and research agenda

Provincialising American Capitalism: From Universal Instance to Contingent Case

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About