D’une Géographie du Travail à une Géographie des travailleurs et travailleuses : les arrangements spatiaux par et pour le travail dans la géographie du capitalisme

La géographie économique néoclassique mainstream et sa critique marxiste ont largement échoué à intégrer des conceptions actives de la classe ouvrière dans leurs explications de la localisation des activités économiques. Les approches néoclassiques tendent à considérer les travailleurs comme de simples facteurs de localisation, tandis que les approches marxistes se concentrent principalement sur la manière dont le capital structure le paysage économique dans sa recherche du profit et relèguent souvent le travail au statut de « capital variable ». Les deux approches présentent des Géographies du travail. Elles n'ont pas vraiment examiné la manière dont les travailleurs et travailleuses tentent de créer des paysages industriels. En revanche, je soutiens que les travailleurs et travailleuses s'intéressent à la manière dont la géographie économique du capitalisme est élaborée ; par conséquent, ils et elles cherchent à imposer ce que nous pourrions appeler un « arrangement spatial par et pour les travailleurs et travailleuses » et jouent ainsi un rôle actif dans la géographie du capitalisme. En faire l’analyse permet d'intégrer une conception plus active des travailleurs en tant qu'agents géographiques dans la compréhension de la production de l'espace sous le capitalisme. Reconnaître l'importance des efforts des travailleurs et travailleuses pour créer ces arrangements spatiaux permet de théoriser la manière dont ils et elles tentent de faire de l'espace une partie intégrante de leur existence sociale (une Géographie des travailleurs et travailleuses) et donc d'écrire des géographies économiques moins axées sur le capital.Mainstream neoclassical economic geography and its Marxist critique have largely failed to incorporate active conceptions of working class people in their explanations of the location of economic activities. Neoclassical approaches tend to conceive of workers simply as factors of location, whereas Marxist approaches primarily focus on how capital structures the economic landscape in its search for profit and frequently relegate labor to the status of “variable capital.” Both approaches present Geographies of Labor. They have not really examined how workers try to make industrial landscapes. In contrast, I argue that workers have an interest in how the economic geography of capitalism is made; consequently, they seek to impose what we might call “labor's spatial fix” and so play an active role in the unevenly developed geography of capitalism. Examining how workers try to develop their own spatial fixes allows us to incorporate a more active sense of workers as geographical agents into understandings of the production of space under capitalism. Recognizing that workers' efforts to create “labor's spatial fix” are significant allows us to theorize how workers attempt to make space as an integral part of their social existence (a Labor Geography) and so to write less capital-oriented economic geographies

O CONHECIMENTO GEOGRÁFICO SOBRE OS TRABALHADORES: REFLEXÕES SOBRE AS PESQUISAS NOS ESTADOS UNIDOS E BRASIL | GEOGRAPHICAL SCHOLARSHIP ON WORKERS: REFLECTIONS N THE FIELD IN THE UNITED STATES AND BRAZIL

Neste artigo procuro traçar duas linhas de reflexão. Em primeiro lugar, vou apresentar um breve panorama de como, o que veio a ser chamado de "Labor Geography", desenvolveu-se enquanto um campo vibrante de pesquisa no mundo da língua inglesa e quais são alguns dos seus princípios centrais. Em segundo lugar, argumentarei sobre algumas semelhanças e diferenças entre as abordagens desses geógrafos ingleses e geógrafos brasileiros que estão interessados ​​em questões de labor e work. Ambos os grupos, por exemplo, foram amplamente influenciados pela teoria marxista (explícita ou implicitamente) no desenvolvimento de suas pesquisas. Ao mesmo tempo, no entanto, "Labor Geography" e o que se refere enquanto "Estudos de Geografia do Trabalho", no Brasil, também têm algumas diferenças importantes

Fall 2007 Visiting Speaker Series

Speakers include: Andrew Herod, University of Georgia. Fighting Communism through Urban Planning: The AFL-CIO\u27s Housing Programs in Latin America and the Caribbean during the 1960sJan Bardsley, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Princess, Geisha, Beauty Queen: Women and Democracy in Cold War JapanDonald N. Clark, Trinity University. The Two Koreas: Lessons from the Past, Hope for the Futurehttps://egrove.olemiss.edu/croft_spe/1000/thumbnail.jp

Scale in education research: towards a multi-scale methodology

This article explores some theoretical and methodological problems concerned with scale in education research through a critique of a recent mixed-method project. The project was framed by scale metaphors drawn from the physical and earth sciences and I consider how recent thinking around scale, for example in ecosystems and human geography might offer helpful points and angles of view on the challenges of thinking spatially in education research. Working between the spatial metaphors of ecology scholars and the critiques of the human geographers, for example the hypercomplex social space in Lefebvre’s political-economic thinking and the fluid, simultaneous, multiple spatialities of Massey’s post-structuralism, I problematize space and scale in education research. Interweaving these geographical ideas with Giddens’ structuration and Bourdieu’s theory of practice, both of which employed what might be termed scale-bridging to challenge social science’s entrenched paradigms, leads me to reconsider what is possible and desirable in the study of education systems. Following the spatial turn in the social sciences generally, there is an outstanding need to theorise multi-scale methodology for education research

Regulatory regionalism and anti-money-laundering governance in Asia

With the intensification of the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF's) worldwide campaign to promote anti-money-laundering regulation since the late 1990s, all Asian states except North Korea have signed up to its rules and have established a regional institution—the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering—to promote and oversee the implementation of FATF's 40 Recommendations in the region. This article analyses the FATF regime, making two key claims. First, anti-money-laundering governance in Asia reflects a broader shift to regulatory regionalism, particularly in economic matters, in that its implementation and functioning depend upon the rescaling of ostensibly domestic agencies to function within a regional governance regime. Second, although this form of regulatory regionalism is established in order to bypass the perceived constraints of national sovereignty and political will, it nevertheless inevitably becomes entangled within the socio-political conflicts that shape the exercise of state power more broadly. Consequently, understanding the outcomes of regulatory regionalism involves identifying how these conflicts shape how far and in what manner global regulations are adopted and implemented within specific territories. This argument is demonstrated by a case study of Myanmar

Contrapuntal geographies: the politics of organizing across sociospatial difference

This chapter is written against the background of two closely interlinked developments. The first is the increase in the number and type (or at least visibility) of transborder political movements this last decade or so, particularly during the years of what David Slater (2003: 84) calls \u27the post-Seattle conjuncture\u27. The second is a sharp increase in geographical writing on these multifarious attempts to bridge sociospatial difference in order to challenge neo-liberal versions of \u27globalization\u27. To oversimplify matters, we can say that this literature relates to two groups of space-spanning social actors: those associated with the labour movement (broadly conceived) and those who are part of the New Left social (and environmental) movements that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s

DEBATES SOBRE LA ESCALA GEOGRÁFICA EN EL MUNDO ANGLÓFONO

Los debates sobre la escala geográfica han cambiado radicalmente la forma de la geografía humana anglófona en las tres últimas décadas. A la cabeza de la discusión hay dos grupos de preguntas de mayor importancia: ¿cuál es el estado ontológico de la escala?, y ¿cómo las maneras como imaginamos que el mundo está escalado afectan nuestro comportamiento en él? Estas preguntas revisten especial importancia en el contexto de los argumentos sobre el carácter de la globalización, en las que ocupa un lugar central la consideración sobre la relación cambiante entre distintas escalas; por ejemplo, la globalización se ha considerado de manera variable la representación de un debilitamiento de la soberanía nacional, la deslocalización de la vida social, entre otros. En este artículo, esbozo algunos de los principales elementos de estos debates

WORKERS AS GEOGRAPHICAL ACTORS

In this paper I first detail some of the geographical concepts that help us make sense of capitalism’s spatiality. I then provide several brief vignettes which illustrate how conflicts over how capitalism’s geography is made can be central to disputes both between and within groups of workers and capitalists. The paper’s purpose is to argue that understanding how social life is geographically structured can add important insights to explaining economic and political praxis