Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space

The key concept of culture has recently been undergoing critical reassessment, and in some cases replacement, by cultural theorists in a number of fields. Some commentators have argued that the concept of culture is too elusive and all encompassing to be of use and that it can be politically dangerous. We will argue instead that the problem is not inherent in all concepts of culture, but in the specific political uses to which particular concepts of culture have been put. We think there is a need to rethink the concept of culture. In fact, cultural coherence in the face of heterogeneity and porous boundaries, complexity, and complicity across far-reaching networks are some of the most challenging and intriguing issues in cultural theory today. Thus we explore alternative conceptions of culture that might hold some promise for cultural geography. Our view is that no one conception holds the answer. Rather, cultural geographers need to develop a critically eclectic mix of culture theories and allow sufficient time for these to be empirically grounded.

In this paper we address the question of ‘what next after poststructuralism’ through a reassessment of area studies. In a narrative of our own involvement with place-oriented research and institutions, we examine the traditional position of area studies in geography and anthropology and its reevaluation by poststructuralist scholars in a number of disciplines. We argue that both prestructuralist and poststructuralist treatments of areas are oriented by a narrative of capitalist development; at the same time, we recognize that traditional area studies has a deep interest in noncapitalist economic practices and relations. It is therefore a resource for those of us who want to create a discourse of economic diversity as a contribution to a politics of economic innovation. The latter half of the paper presents an extended example of reading for economic difference drawn from fieldwork in the oil-palm sector in Papua New Guinea. We conclude with a ‘post-poststructuralist’ reflection on geographic field research. From our evolving perspective, the fieldwork practices that are the principal research methods of area studies constitute a relatively untheorized form of academic politics, creating differences in thought (and thus in the world) via new interpenetrations of concepts and ‘matter’.

The historical archaeology of Foucault and the ethnnomethodology of Garkinkel and Sacks may be regarded as rather different traditions in sociocultural inquiry, and for human geography, but there are arguably a number of distinctive points of overlap. In this paper, and following the example of McHoul's consideration of the affinities between Foucault and Garfinkel, we explore these overlaps, paying particular attention to what Foucault, Garfinkel, Sacks, and others have to say about both ‘local rules' as opposed to ‘transcendent laws' and the prioritising of ‘surfaces’ over ‘depths’. In so doing a window is opened on the possibilities for an ‘ethnoarchaeological’ human geography inspired by both traditions, not as a definitive answer to the question ‘what next’ in the discipline but as another lens through which ongoing manoeuvres might be viewed.

In addressing the question of what might be next in human geography I endeavour to enrich the debates between Anglo-American poststructuralist and continental European action-theoretical approaches by bringing ‘life’ to the geographical subject. In contrast to established conceptualisations of the geographical self, I will introduce a conception of the self which mediates between the subject and the subjectified, between voluntarism and determinism, and between consciousness and corporeality. Through this reconceptualisation I do not pretend to provide final answers, but rather seek to initiate a new stream of thought.

The editors of this issue of the journal called for a response to the question: ‘What next?’ Instead of offering a programmatic or visionary statement, I endeavour to amplify the sense of suspense that would ordinarily be foreclosed by answering the question directly. This is achieved by playing off the literal and colloquial meanings of the question: ‘What next?’, ‘What more absurd, shocking, or surprising thing is possible?’ The upshot of this encounter is an undecidable vacillation between the probable and the improbable, the rational and the irrational, and the expected and the unexpected. By alluding to both realism and surrealism, and drawing on programmation, speculation, and fabulation, I deploy some poststructuralist and materialist motifs in order to ensure that the future of human geography will remain in perpetual suspense and thereby open to those aleatory encounters that come from who knows where.

The following thought piece addresses the issue ‘what next’ by considering the effects of poststructural thought on the field. Specifically, I argue that poststructuralism has emerged in the field as a problem that a number of geographers have endeavoured to solve by devising new theoretical frameworks and innovative methodological principles, the purpose of which is to make social science ‘better’. In response I suggest that the problems posed by poststructuralism are fundamentally unanswerable and that they are meant to be recognised rather than resolved. While poststructuralism effectively reveals the limits of social science, it should not seduce us into thinking we can somehow do social science differently. This is because social science always involves doing some kind of metaphysics–that is, the practice of determining, delimiting, representing, and explaining how the world works. The goal of this paper is to discuss the relationship between metaphysics and deconstruction as an ontological condition that cannot be surmounted through study or thought. I conclude by suggesting that the goal of social science should not be to get around this relationship but rather to embrace it as a fundamental aspect of what we as geographers, social scientists, and human beings do.

The new outstrips the old—but only sometimes. This short paper identifies four forms of ‘novelty’ in Anglophone human geography. In taking the case of a nascent ‘nonrepresentational geography’ some concerns are raised about the seeming ennui with representation as a research issue and as a practical and political resource. Far from insisting that ‘old’ intellectual fashions are better than new ones, we simply caution against travelling forward minus some important baggage. By way of seven theses, we finesse critical geography's engagement with representation and argue that any nonrepresentational ‘alternative’ should not be seen as jettisoning the substantial power of representational acts.

In this paper, I raise, in polemical terms, several possible responses to the question ‘What next?’ in human geography. I am particularly concerned to address matters from a radical/critical perspective, and to suggest ways of moving current theoretical, methodological, and substantive insights more consciously (rather than tacitly) into wider circulations of dialogue and activism. I examine extant hegemonic relations of academic production and reproduction, the relationships between academia and the ‘outside’ worlds in which we operate, and conclude with possible steps toward the development of an effective counterhegemony both within and without the academy.

Over the past twenty years the marketing of African fresh vegetables in the United Kingdom has become dominated by large retailers that have adopted competitive strategies based on quality, year-round supply, and product differentiation. This has led to a dramatic change in marketing channels, from wholesale markets to tightly knit supply chains. Global value chain analysis is used to explain why the various stages of production and marketing have become much more closely integrated and to consider the likely outcome of a further round of restructuring occurring at the present time. Although the current trends may lead to a changing role for importers, the tendency towards the concentration of production and processing in Africa in the hands of a few large firms is likely to continue.

This paper examines how the rent-creating conventions that regulate organic food production undermine growers' abilities to farm in a less intensive manner. The paper builds on a growing literature on food governance which points to the unintended consequences of standardization and their verification. The argument is based in theories of rent, with specific attention to how the constructed scarcity of organic food creates rents that are competed away or appropriated. The author also discusses how organic regulations may manifest in monopoly ground rents, especially given the attention paid to land in organic certification. Insofar as these rents pass through to land values, they contribute to a broader pattern of land valuation that pushes farmers to grow the most valuable crops in the most productive ways—an imperative that is not necessarily conducive to organic farming as it is generally envisioned.

The author presents case studies that reveal persistent variation in the logistics operations of firms importing new automobiles to the USA from 1980 to 1999. He argues that, in addition to the recognized differences such as national origin, product mix, and production organization, the strategic organization of logistics itself constitutes a basis for persistent variation. Firms operating at a global scale face heightened uncertainties in matching supply and demand and hence have a heightened requirement for flexibility. This is theorized in this paper as the ability to collect and transmit information, both codified and tacit, within and across various spatial scales. However, these informational goals imply very different organizational structures that are in tension. In ideal-type terms, firm organizational structures vary in the degree to which they are localized—referring to the intra-regional collection of information through horizontal relationships between the firm and external actors—or globalized—referring to the interregional transmission of information between portions of the firm. Persistent variation is the most likely outcome as firms constantly seek to reorganize their logistics operations in historically contingent, experimental, and contested ways.

In this paper the author examines, through a case study of a hospital merger in Boston, MA, the ways in which a locally scaled union strategy can shape privatization. She first examines recent economic changes in the US hospital industry, which have resulted in a record number of mergers, closures, and conversions. A case study of the merger between a public hospital, Boston City Hospital, and a private hospital, Boston University Hospital, into the private, nonprofit, Boston Medical Center is presented to demonstrate the ways in which unions can participate in setting the terms of such mergers. The strategy of one labor union local in particular, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 285, is examined in regard to protecting both the provision of public healthcare and the conditions of employment during and after the process of privatization. By utilizing a local strategy and waging a highly public campaign, leaders of SEIU Local 285 were able to build coalitions with other labor unions and public healthcare advocates and played an instrumental role in setting the terms of the merger. As a result, the final merger agreement contained significant protection for quality public healthcare and labor practices favorable for workers. Unions that previously represented public sector workers now represent private sector workers, and wages for all employees moved upward as part of the agreement. In addition, the new private sector entity was charged with what had formerly been a public sector mission. In effect, although the public hospital was ultimately privatized, the private sector was restructured by local level, public sector union activism.