Feminist political geographies: Critical reflections,new directions

Abstract

Feminist political geography (FPG) is a vibrant, diverse, provocative and contested field of inquiry. This special issue highlights those scholars connecting FPG approaches, methodologies and arguments to critical work in other sub-fields of our discipline, and beyond it. In doing so we open up a productive conversation about both the current limitations and the new insights FPG offers for understanding power and the political. The papers included in this special issue offer a lively, constructive and productive set of debates around FPG that reflect the energy and dynamism of our sub-field and that bring new ideas, arguments and engagements into conversation.

Keywords

Feminist geography political geography economic intersectional emotion

They were one, now they are a hundred. When I take my daughter to school in the morning, what will happen if they corner us, what if they have a knife or something? What will I do? (Kümbra, Turkish citizen, in Gökarıksel and Secor, 2018: 12)

These are the people that society has shut out – homeless folks, elderly and sick folks. We feel a connection to them. (Valerie, Mexican American budtender, in Chlala, 2019: 10)

[I felt] the fire under me to be an advocate for the forgotten folk … we started knocking on doors. (Gina Luster, Flint Rising/Water Warriors organizer in Vasudevan and Smith, 2020: 13)

For over three decades feminist geographers have worked to denaturalize, disrupt, and emplace power in diverse and provocative ways (Kobayashi and Peake, 1994; Kofman and Peake, 1990; Nelson and Seager, 2005; Staeheli, Kofman and Peake, 2004; Raghuram et al., 2009). The words of Kümbra, Valerie and Gina, quoted above, capture some of feminist political geography’s central concerns: exclusion, sovereignty, resistance, violence, and the ties between power and place. Together they are important conceptual touchstones for the arguments comprising this special issue. Here, we continue efforts to expand the bounds of feminist political geography (FPG), demonstrating its insight for both our discipline and critical scholarship more broadly. At the heart of this project is an epistemological disruption. It is born from the feminist tradition of theoretically rich and empirically grounded attention to those sites historically rendered apolitical or inconsequential for understanding the body politic.

The interrogation of society’s power-geometries has always demanded that we “disrupt the seemingly coherent—and perhaps closed—project of the sub-discipline [of political geography]” (Staeheli, Kofman and Peake, 2004: 6). While the wider field of political geography largely overlooked the significance of patriarchy and gendered power (Berg, 2012), feminist geographers incisively demonstrated that, without this recognition, our understanding of geopolitical shifts and capitalist formations is incomplete (Domosh, 2010a; Katz, 1996; Staeheli et al., 2004; Wright, 2014). In turn, feminist political geography has intersected with nearly every branch of human geography, as well as many other disciplines. For example, scholars working at the nexus of political ecology and FPG reveal how gendered power shapes access to resources and rights (Hapke and Ayyankeril, 2018; Ybarra, 2009), while elsewhere FPG points to how subjectivity influences political decision-making (Clark, 2015), mobility and fixity across borders (Hiemstra and Conlon, 2017; Mountz et al., 2013; Williams, 2016), and how wars are fought through and over the body (and particular bodies) (Cowen and Gilbert, 2008; Hyndman, 2008; Pain, 2015). FPG has also intersected in powerful ways with political economy, exploring national and international divisions of labor (Mullings, 2009; Wright, 2004), the devaluation and disposability of Black life, and racial capitalism more broadly (McKittrick, 2011; Mollett, 2016).

Collectively, FPG has pushed geography to extend the reach of politics, attending to the undulations of power over space and place and the deep significance of ‘the private realm’, the everyday, and the corporeal to political life. Feminist political geographers make clear not only how political systems (re)produce inequalities, but that these asymmetries are central to how politics play out. This body of work typically examines and works with marginalized communities to highlight how those rendered apolitical are in fact central to the operation of power across scales more than just attending to the sites and subjects so often left out of hegemonic political analysis, feminist political geographers also seek to proactively intervene in these processes, in the name of creating more just and equitable worlds. These interventions are apparent in the research approaches and products of feminist political geographers, as well as the way in which they have been central to disrupting and challenging institutional systems of inequity and exclusion.

This is fraught work. Feminist geographers have faced a long history of intellectual marginalization, trivialization, and dismissal (e.g Domosh, 2010b; Mansfield et al., 2019). At the same time, by building networks of connection and collaboration across related critical fields, FPG is also a practice enacted through solidarity within and across research/ed communities. This comes with tension and difficulty. Chlala details in this volume how Black feminist intellectuals have “long pressed scholars and activists alike to interrogate – and struggle against – the ways in which dominant institutions have proliferated discourses and political structures that render the figure of the West, rational, Euro-American white man … - and with it the contemporary capitalist mode of production – natural and universal” (4). While in many ways these kinds of critiques are central to FPG, we must also be critically self-reflective of how whiteness and heteronormativity infuse this sub-field. Here, feminist geographers have made important moves in recent years to build inclusivity, intersectionality and complexity into the way the sub-discipline is bounded. This is illustrated, for example, in the recent renaming of the Geographical Perspectives on Women (GPOW) specialty group of the American Association of Geographers (AAG) to the Feminist Geography Specialty Group – in line with similar moves elsewhere. While in some ways a minor change, it is one that emerged after sustained critical engagement and reflection regarding the expansion of feminist geography beyond simply women (or gender). We must continue this work to foster an explicitly anti-racist, anti-ableist and queer feminist political geography.

The works in this special issue contribute to this project. Consistent with the longstanding imperatives of FGP is the move these papers make to disrupt our understanding of the operation of power over and through space. Extending this body of work, these pieces deepen and complicate our understanding of P/politics by their intersectional analyses of gender and theorizations of heteropatriarchal, racist, nationalist and ableist power, not simply difference (Bailey and Shabazz, 2014; Gilmore, 2002; Mollett and Faria, 2013; Vasudevan, 2019). Within this broad imperative, the methodological, analytical, and epistemological approaches vary considerably. But this diversity, and the wide range of insights this body of work offers, demonstrates the utility of critically reflecting and dismantling intellectual boundaries as one strategy to foster more inclusive and critical geographic sub-disciplines.

Below we tease out three particularly cogent themes that connect the pieces and signal broader trends in the field: First is the disruption of naturalized, power-laden binaries. Second is a sensitivity to the intersectionality of embodied and emplaced power. And last is a commitment to transformative, disruptive activist theory and praxis. While diverse in topical scope, in their own way each article examines how political and social subjects are produced and positioned within the systems and structures that (re)produce inequality, oppression and exploitation. Together they demonstrate the insights of a feminist political geographic approach and the vibrant new directions for the field.

Disrupting binaries, denaturalizing power

A central imperative for feminist geography is denaturalizing the norming work of power and disrupting the binaries that sustain it (Kobayashi and Peake, 1994). This denaturalizing work remains a sustained analytical approach and concern of the feminist political geographers included in this special issue. It is deconstructive and productive work that highlights both how subjectivities, places, and processes emerge in relation to their ‘others’ and how new visions of the future can be fostered.

In “The Domestic geopolitics of racial capitalism”, for example, Vasudevan and Smith (2020) refuse the notion of a purely outward-oriented geopolitics or a colonial past. In doing so they push us to recognize how the “shadows of empire” (p.1162) continue to wreak violence via connected logics of racialized disposability, value-less bodies, and capital accumulation through labor exploitation. Their writing draws on other efforts to denaturalize power; most notably scholarly work conceptualizing a “racial capitalism” (Robinson, 1983; see also James, 1938; Lowe, 2015; Ture and Hamilton, 1992). This makes clear, as Vasudevan and Smith argue, how “capitalism is predicated upon a racialized hierarchy of gendered bodies and accompanying racialization of space” (p. 1161). Their work richly extends inquiry into racialized capitalism via a spatial analysis connecting the communities, bodies, and geographic moves both driving and challenging racial capitalism. They trace two recent examples of environmental racism to their far longer colonial and racist pasts. The first is West Badin, a “company town” and the site of Alcoa Inc’s smelting plant, which has produced concentrated and lethal waste in the area for decades. Widespread lead poisoning in Flint Michigan, provides the second and connected example of devastating poisoning and pollution. Their powerful research illustrates how each situation of racialized exploitation was made possible by the persistent and normalized devaluation of African Americans. This makes possible the “racial zones of toxicity and abandonment” (p. 1161) that devastate these communities while bringing great profit to Alcoa Inc. Their intersectional conceptualization of a “domestic geopolitics” complicates and deepens feminist geopolitical and geoeconomic work on social reproduction, domestic socialities, and the radical caring labor most often undertaken by women.

In conversation with this work is Robert Chlala’s paper, “Mistfit medicine and queer geographies: the diverse economy and politics of cannabis in carceral Los Angeles”. Chlala uses a materialist analysis to highlight the political potency of this economy. In particular he examines the center and margins of this diverse economy, demonstrating how they are mutually constituted in a way that both opens and closes political possibilities. He shows us the intentional political economy of care and resistance enacted by queer people of color. Through cannabis, workers create an economic space to exist, persist and, most notably, enact “intersectional campaigns to protect more-than-capitalist elements of the industry” (p.1180). Chlala’s analysis of the everyday experiences of queer and transgender people of color relies on a richly ethnographic depiction of quotidian materialist life. In conversation with, and extending, feminist political scholarship on capitalism, his work traces the political possibilities of the economies of care created in the margins and by the marginalized. Chlala demonstrates theoretically and empirically, that diverse economies are political and they take political work. And he pushes FPG beyond the deconstructive querying of how power systems of inequity and injustice come to be, to show us how they can be resisted and reworked.

These papers, along with others in this special issue, exemplify the vital efforts of feminist political geography to connect analyses of the political to those of the economic. Notably, feminist antiracist moves to disrupting binaries and denaturalizing power enables FPG to shed light on the deeply rooted historical ties between racist and capitalist logics. They provide incisive examples of intersectional feminist work that explicitly and intentionally examine how varied forms of racial power and domination, via nationalism, nativism, xenophobia and anti-Blackness, interlock to shape the experiences and material realities of individuals and communities. It also makes visible how the margin, and spaces within dominant systems of exploitation such as that of capitalism, can be sites of both exploitation and resistance, domination and possibility.

Understanding politics as everyday, embodied, and emplaced

Nearly twenty years ago, Marston’s (2000) seminal piece, “The Social Construction of Scale,” drew attention to the marginalization of ‘the feminine’ in critical geographic scholarship. In part, she argued that understanding systems of domination requires attending to those ‘feminine’ spaces and processes that undergird capitalist social relations (see also Freeman, 2001; Kofman and Peake, 1990). Feminist political geographers have continued to innovate around scalar thinking, insisting on an always-corporeal conceptualization of those processes typically understood as abstract, masculine, disembodied, and “out there” like nationalism, capitalism, and globalization (Mountz and Hyndman, 2006; Pratt and Rosner, 2006). These corporeal moves are affective, and feminist scholars have laid the foundations for the wider emotional turn in and beyond political geography (Lowe, 2015; Stewart, 2007; Thien, 2005; Tsing, 2015). Feminist political geographers have provided key spatial insights into wider transdisicplinary trends to ‘embody’ and rescale ‘macro’ geoeconomic and geopolitical processes, locating these global intimacies of power; excavating the political, economic, cultural and ecological grounds that produce them; and tracing the links across places to near and distant people, places and things (Gilmore, 2002; Katz, 2004; Pratt and Rosner, 2006). In turn, the everyday, trivialized, and elided (e.g., the feminized, racialized) spaces of everyday life have long been key sites of inquiry for FPG.

This focus on emplacing power and politics in the spaces of everyday life is evident throughout the special issue contributions. Williams’s (2019) piece on transnational public information campaigns as a spatial strategy of border enforcement, examines how geopolitical processes and objectives intentionally seep into the intimate spaces of everyday life. Through a critical textual and visual analysis of elements of the campaign: song lyrics, photography, and personal accounts, Williams shows how the campaigns aim to reduce unauthorized migration attempts by embedding graphic and powerful messages of death and violence into the fabric of migrant life. Vitally, her work expands our understanding of where US border enforcement happens, highlighting how the intimate spaces of everyday life where potential migrants live, love, and socialize are rendered sites of geopolitical persuasion and intervention. This is important not just because they are rarely attended to as geopolitical spaces, but also because this practice of migrant deterrence works in particularly affective ways in these spaces. The messaging used in these materials, and their material presence in private spaces quietly but often with great terror, reminds migrants of the extensive reach of the state.

While Williams draws attention to the home as a site of strategic state intervention, Massaro’s (2019) article “Relocating the Intimate” tracks how shifting carceral landscapes rely on the feminized spaces of the home and work of women. Massaro centers everyday experiences and policies of parole in Pennsylvania, examining state efforts to reduce prison populations in the name of being “smart”, not simply “tough”, on crime. She shows how these efforts, intended to reduce state expenditures, depend on the labor of Black and Brown families, and particularly that of women. This shifts the financial burden to these families, deepening the precarity of already-strained communities, with sustained economic and emotional tolls. As Massaro shows, this is not an unintentional outcome, but one that the state in fact anticipates and relies on. She argues that it makes possible a “dramatic expansion” of the prison system “by other means” (p.1217). Parole becomes a spatial fix, displacing the cost and work of inmate-care from the prison to the home. Massaro’s analysis challenges us to be careful not to celebrate seemingly ‘good’ policy developments, such as that of expanded parole, or simply to highlight its victimization of women, families, and communities of color. Instead she unpacks the complex and interlinked racisms of neoliberal austerity measures, and show us how they are lived.

Gökarıksel and Secor mirror this kind of complex scalar analysis of policy in their work on the Turkish state and the geopolitical power and significance of everyday encounters between Turkish citizens and Syrian migrants. They trace how these encounters are informed by, and shape, the powerful formal geopolitical messaging from Turkish leaders. Here they show how the geopolitical powerfully rubs up against and works through the affective, demonstrating how each drive desires for new geographies of division and separation. Through their work we see how state ideology is manifest in and are reproduced through everyday, seemingly apolitical, spaces and bodies.

Gökarıksel and Secor, take up Pain’s (2009) call for an “emotional geopolitics”, linking it to work on psychoanalytic geographies to understand how fear “opens [geopolitical] cartographies to topological dynamism, to the entanglement of here and there, of ourselves and others” (p.1241). This resonates with wider moves amongst the authors of this special issue, along with feminist political geographers before them, to develop deeply embodied and affective geopolitical analysis. As their work shows, connecting the corporeal and quotidian with “big P” politics gives us a far more complex understanding of the fabric, fuel, and fall out of power.

Ethical engagements, troubling feminist futures

Our last thread centers the longstanding commitment of feminist political geography to social justice. This attention to the subjects and spaces of resistance and liberation and to imagining alternative futures is also featured throughout this special issue. Our authors, especially Chlala, Williams, and Gökarıksel and Secor ask in some form: what are the conditions for an ethical encounter, one that might call forth a relationship of responsibility or care? Sometimes these ethical inquiries require disruptive moves and figures.

For Militz, Sara Ahmed’s (2010) feminist killjoy is one such inspirational and transformative figure. In “Killing the joy, feeling the cruelty: feminist geographies of nationalism in Azerbaijan,” Militz (2020) uses the killjoy to develop a provocative feminist political geographic intervention. Her work builds on a longstanding concern in political geography with “banal nationalism”, that has examined the spatialities of everyday expressions of nationalist pride, loyalty and connection through, for example, stamps and sporting events (e.g. Koch and Paasi, 2016; Müller, 2011; Raento and Brunn, 2008). Militz is attentive to the insights here, and engages carefully with the Spinozian and psychoanalytic intellectual norms of this subfield, particularly their engagement with “jouissance” or enjoyment. But her feminist interventions push against the often-disembodied rendering of national attachments via the figure of the killjoy, which refuses this move. Instead the killjoy is always searching for the political violences beneath taken-for-granted, seemingly natural drives. Militz details the sexist, heterosexist, racist, and classist discourses that “enable and legitimize nationalist projects and experiences”. These are made manifest around a set of quotidian but powerful and affective Azerbaijani objects, moments, and moves: pleasure in a child’s dress and her dance moves, celebrations of the Nobruz Bayram national holiday, and disgust at the sight of veiled women smoking. Through these objects and moments she disrupts joy, making visible the underlying and always deeply gendered aggressions of nationalism, its darker side. Her work demonstrates, with psychoanalytical sensibility, the ways that it is always bound up with the satisfaction of fitting in, of knowing the dance moves, of staying in step. Joy emerges as something that we can both hold onto and find power in, while also eyeing warily.

For Whitesell and Faria (2019) the focus is knowledge production and how we might think and visualize our global economy differently. Here they draw on feminist critiques of, and interventions in, representational GIS to explore the multi-scalar Ugandan wedding industry. Building on foundational feminist GIS work by Bagheri (2014) they offer a feminist GIS that unmoors it from its colonial and imperial legacies. Their mapping offers a visualization of the local, mundane practices of consumption: what Carla Freeman (2001) has suggested is “the very fabric of globalization” (p. 1279). In particular, they map the embodied geoeconomies of the Ugandan wedding industry. They reveal the shifting industry as one that, on one hand, reworks neoliberal globalization, but also reinforces homonormative culture and the increasing exclusion for non-heternormative people and ways of being in Uganda. By combining interview quotes and global flows, the maps offer a methodological opening to capture the global nature of everyday practice and to ground these in the qualitative individual experiences required to understand them. They seek not simply to map the places left out of dominant geopolitical and geoeconomic analysis, but to create new ways of seeing and envisioning globalized subjects, spaces, practices and relationships.

Across these pieces, we see a concern with ethical epistemological engagement and an epistemological engagement with ethics. The questions taken up by feminist political geographers, and those throughout this special issue, make clear their social justice imperatives. Eloquently articulated by Gökarıksel and Secor (2018), the special issue as a whole articulates and enacts an “ethics of how to hear, understand, and respond to the pain of others” (p.1237) as a way to better understand and challenge violence, erasure, and exploitation.

New directions for feminist political geography

This special issue spotlights the expansive nature of FPG today. The contributions also help us identify how the field can and should move forward. Their wide-ranging scope, methodological, analytical, and theoretical, raises two important questions for us. First, what is the thread that holds the sub discipline together? As we argue here, we find three imperatives at the heart of feminist political geography: to decloak and denaturalize power; to disrupt scalar fictions, instead tracking the always-corporeal, felt and visceral operations of power; and to resist, reimagine, and build just futures. The second question raised for us is how, with these imperatives in mind, do we build a more inclusive, more diverse and more transformative FPG? Here we argue that perhaps what unites us is precisely the discontinuity that emerges from a commitment to critical reflexivity, productive disagreement, and methodological innovation grounded in a commitment to social change. Feminist political geography can productively refuse to be defined by the subjects we study, or the methods and theories we use. Instead we can make central to FPG a just, reparative and transformative community of practice created through difficult dialogue and a shared commitment to solidarity, one that actively works to both understand and rework systems of power, inequity, and marginalization, including within our own knowledge production.

Feminist political geography has long sought out these kinds of provocative interventions and productive intellectual disagreements. This makes it particularly well suited to grapple with the most challenging issues of our discipline, and our time. It must continue to do so. FPG is invigorated by new work underway on the political geographies of children, of new materialities, non-human animals, inanimate life, of antiracist citizenship; and the critical physical political geographies demanded by the Anthropocene (Browne, 2015; Gillespie, 2018; Hovorka, 2015; Schurr, 2018; Torres, 2018; Torres and Wicks-Asbun, 2014; Yusoff, 2019). Foundational to some of this work, it is our contention that we must center and hone our analysis of the insidious relations of power that hold together racism, heteropatriarchy, capitalism, and ableism. These are vital asymmetries through which politics operate and political action manifests. As such, and urgently, feminist geographers must build on the imperatives and insights of queer, crip, decolonial, and anti-racist work (Faria and Mollett, 2020; Gahman, 2017; King, 2019; Loyola-Hernández, 2018; Naylor et al., 2018). While many pieces in this special issue, in step with wider shifts in the sub-field, reflect our progress, there remains much work to do. To do so, we must cross-pollinate with spatially complex intellectual moves in for example, Black studies, Indigenous studies and critical disability studies, to deepen, complicate and transform our work.

The second decade of this Millennium is marked by significant political-economic and cultural shifts: the rise of right wing nationalisms and anti-immigrant sentiment around the world, increasingly violent border clashes and sustained state-based racist violence within those borders, and now the looming shadow of a devastating, and deeply political global pandemic. Each unfolding amidst the encroaching environmental devastation wrought by Anthropogenic climate change and rooted in centuries of social injustice. Feminist political geography is vital to our understanding of the embodied spatialities of power that underpin, drive and fall out of these shifts. Its epistemological and methodological innovations around space, political subjectivity and scalar power prompts complex analyses of power that include, but extend far beyond, a unitary understanding of “patriarchy”, “women”, “gender”, and “feminized” scale and space. We build from FPG’s longstanding relational, embodied and transgressive interrogation of power, and its work to oppress and exploit, privilege and suppress. And we welcome openings in the sub-field to new and different directions, innovations, transgressions, reparations and transformations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to all the authors who contributed to this special issue and to the wider group of geographers who participated in our 2017 and 2019 AAG sessions on new directions in feminist political geography. We appreciate the intellectually rich debates and feminist connections that emerged from these relationships. Thank you to Annie Elledge and Suzanne Nimoh, who undertook editorial work on the manuscript. Lastly, thank you to Alison Mountz who invited us to publish this in EPC and who offered incredibly instructive intellectual guidance all along the way, and to Katie Nudd, Eugene McCann and the wider editorial team at EPC who guided it through the process. All three co-authors contributed equally to this piece and are listed in alphabetical order.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Caroline Faria

Vanessa A Massaro

Caroline Faria is a feminist geographer in the Department of Geography and the Environment and the Center for Women's and Gender Studies at the University of Texas. Her work examines neoliberal globalization and cosmopolitanism via the East African beauty trade.

Vanessa A Massaro is an assistant professor of geography at Bucknell University. Her research draws on mixed quantitative and ethnographic methods to explore the way spatially segregated racial minorities, particularly African Americans, navigate the intersection of racism with broader forces of economic injustice. Her work has been published in Gender, Place, and Culture, Geopolitics, Geography Compass, and Territory, Politics, Governance. She is currently an American Association of University Women American Fellow.

Jill M Williams is an associate research professor in the Southwest Institute for Research on Women and affiliate faculty in the School of Geography, Development, and Environment at the University of Arizona. Her research employs a feminist geographic approach to examine a wide-range of issues related to inequity and injustice including transnational migration and border enforcement and science and engineering education. She currently serves as the Director of the Women in Science and Engineering Program at the University of Arizona.

References

Ahmed S (2010) The promise of happiness. Duke University Press.

Bagheri

(2014) Mapping women in Tehran’s public spaces: A geo-visualization perspective. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 21(10): 1285–1301.

Bailey

Shabazz

(2014) Gender and sexual geographies of blackness: Anti-black heterotopias (part 1). Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 21(3): 316–321.

Berg

(2012) Geographies of identity I: Geography – (Neo)liberalism – White supremacy. Progress in Human Geography 36(4): 508–517.

Browne

(2015) Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness. Durham: Duke University Press.

Chlala

(2019) Misfit medicine and queer geographies: The diverse economy and politics of cannabis in Carceral Los Angeles. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38(7–8): 1180–1197.

Clark

(2015) Green, red, yellow and purple: Gendering the Kurdish question in South-east Turkey. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 22(10): 1463–1480.

Cowen

Gilbert

(2008) War, Citizenship, Territory. New York: Routledge.

Domosh

(2010a) The world was never flat: Early global encounters and the messiness of empire. Progress in Human Geography 34(4): 419–435.

10.

Domosh

(2010b) Unintentional transgressions and other reflections on the job search process. The Professional Geographer 52(4): 703–708.

11.

Faria

Mollett

(2020) We didn’t have time to sit still and be scared’: A postcolonial feminist geographic reading of ‘an other geography. Dialogues in Human Geography 10(1): 23–29.

12.

Freeman

(2001) Is local: Global as feminine: Masculine? Rethinking the gender of globalization. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 26(4): 1007–1037.

13.

Gahman

(2017) Crip theory and country boys: Masculinity, dis/ability, and place in rural southeast Kansas. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107(3): 700–715.

14.

Gillespie

(2018) The Cow With Ear Tag# 1389. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

15.

Gilmore

(2002) Fatal couplings of power and difference: Notes on racism and geography. The Professional Geographer 54(1): 15–24.

16.

Gökarıksel

Secor

(2018) Affective geopolitics: Anxiety, pain, and ethics in the encounter with Syrian refugees in Turkey. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38(7–8): 1237–1255.

17.

Hapke

Ayyankeril

(2018) Gendered livelihoods in the global fish-food economy: A comparative study of three Fisherfolk communities in Kerala, India. Maritime Studies 17(2): 133–143.

18.

Hiemstra

Conlon

(2017) Beyond privatization: Bureaucratization and the spatialities of immigration detention expansion. Territory, Politics, Governance 5(3): 252–268.

19.

Hovorka

(2015) Feminism and animals: Exploring interspecies relations through intersectionality, performativity and standpoint. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 22(1): 1–19.

20.

Hyndman

(2008) Whose bodies count? Feminist geopolitics and lessons from Iraq. In: Riley RL, Mohanty CM and Pratt MB (eds) Feminism and War: Confronting U.S. Imperialism. London: Zed Books, pp.192–204.

21.

James

CLR

(1938) The Black Jacobians: Touissant L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution. New York: Vintage Books.

22.

Katz

(1996) Towards minor theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14(4): 487–499.

23.

Katz

(2004) Growing up Global: Economic Restructuring and Children’s Everyday Lives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

24.

King

(2019) The Black Shoals: Offshore Formations of Black and Native Studies. Durham: Duke University Press.

25.

Kobayashi

Peake

(1994) Unnatural discourse. ‘Race’ and gender in geography. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 1(2): 225–243.

26.

Koch

Paasi

(2016) Banal nationalism 20 years on: Re-thinking, re-formulating and re-contextualizing the concept. Political Geography 54: 1–6.

27.

Kofman

Peake

(1990) Into the 1990s: A gendered agenda for political geography. Political Geography Quarterly 9(4): 313–336.

28.

Lowe

(2015) The Intimacies of Four Continents. Durham: Duke University Press.

29.

Loyola-Hernández

(2018) Spatial crossings: Gender, race and politics in Yucatecan Maya municipalities. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 25(10): 1448–1470.

30.

Mansfield

Lave

McSweeney

, et al.. (2019) It’s time to recognize how men's careers benefit from sexually harassing women in academia. Human Geography 12(1): 82–87.

31.

Marston

(2000) The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography 24(2): 219–242.

32.

Massaro

(2019) Relocating the “inmate”: Tracing the geographies of social reproduction in correctional supervision. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38(7–8): 1216–1236.

33.

McKittrick

(2011) On plantations, prisons, and a black sense of place. Social & Cultural Geography 12(8): 947–963.

34.

Militz

(2020) Killing the joy, feeling the cruelty: Feminist geographies of nationalism in Azerbaijan. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38(7–8): 1256–1274.

35.

Mollett

(2016) The power to plunder: Rethinking land grabbing in Latin America. Antipode 48(2): 412–432.

36.

Mollett

Faria

(2013) Messing with gender in feminist political ecology. Geoforum 45: 116–125.

37.

Mountz

Hyndman

(2006) Feminist approaches to the global intimate. Women’s Studies Quarterly 34(1): 446–463.

38.

Mountz

Coddington

Catania

, et al.. (2013) Conceptualizing detention: Mobility, containment, bordering, and exclusion. Progress in Human Geography 37(4): 522–541.

39.

Müller

(2011) Market meets nationalism: Making entrepreneurial state subjects in post-Soviet Russia. Nationalities Papers 39(3): 393–408.

40.

Mullings

(2009) Neoliberalization, social reproduction and the limits to labour in Jamaica. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 30(2): 174–188.

41.

Naylor

Daigle

Zaragocin

, et al.. (2018) Interventions: Bringing the decolonial to political geography. Political Geography 66: 199–209.

42.

Nelson

Seager

J (

eds) (2005) A Companion to Feminist Geography. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

43.

Pain

(2009) Globalized fear? Towards an emotional geopolitics. Progress in Human Geography 33(4): 466–486.

44.

Pain

(2015) Intimate war. Political Geography 44: 64–73.

45.

Pratt

Rosner

(2006) Introduction: The global & the intimate. Women's Studies Quarterly 34(1/2): 13–24.

46.

Raento

Brunn

(2008) Picturing a nation: Finland and postage stamps, 1917-2008. National Identities 10(1): 49–75.

47.

Raghuram

Madge

Noxolo

(2009) Rethinking responsibility and care for a postcolonial world. Geoforum 40(1): 5–13.

48.

Robinson

(1983) Black Marxism: The Making of the Black Radical Tradition. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

49.

Schurr

(2018) The baby business booms: Economic geographies of assisted reproduction. Geography Compass 12(8): e12395.

50.

Staeheli

Kofman

Peake

(2004) Mapping Women, Making Politics: Feminist Perspectives on Political Geography. New York: Routledge.

51.

Stewart

(2007) Ordinary Affects. Durham: Duke University Press.

52.

Thien

(2005) After or beyond feeling? A consideration of affect and emotion in geography. Area 37(4): 450–456.

53.

Torres

(2018) A crisis of rights and responsibility: Feminist geopolitical perspectives on Latin American refugees and migrants. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 25(1): 13–36.

54.

Torres

Wicks-Asbun

(2014) Undocumented students’ narratives of liminal citizenship: High aspirations, exclusion, and “in-between” identities. The Professional Geographer 66(2): 195–204.

55.

Tsing

(2015) The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

56.

Ture

Hamilton

(1992) Black Power: The Politics of Liberation. New York: Vintage Books.

57.

Vasudevan

(2019) An intimate inventory of race and waste. Antipode. Epub ahead of print 15 January 2019. DOI: 10.1111/anti.12501.

58.

Vasudevan

Smith

(2020) The domestic geopolitics of racial capitalism. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38(7–8): 1160–1179.

59.

Whitesell

Faria

(2019) Gowns, globalization and “global intimate mapping: Visualizing layered and multiscalar encounters in Uganda’s wedding industry. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38(7–8): 1275–1290.

60.

Williams

(2016) The safety/security nexus and the humanitarianisation of border enforcement. The Geographical Journal 182(1): 27–37.

61.

Williams

(2019) Affecting migration: Public information campaigns and the intimate spatialities of border enforcement. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 38(7–8): 1198–1215.

62.

Wright

(2004) From protests to politics: Sex work, women’s worth and ciudad Juárez modernity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(2): 369–386.

63.

Wright

(2014) The gender, place and culture Jan monk distinguished annual lecture: Gentrification, assassination and forgetting in Mexico: A feminist Marxist tale. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 21(1): 1–16.

64.

Ybarra

(2009) Violent visions of an ownership society: The land administration project in Petén, Guatemala. Land Use Policy 26(1): 44–54.

65.

Yusoff

(2019) A Billion Black Anthropocenes or None. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.