Papers by Carolyn Gallaher
Social & Cultural Geography, 2002
During the 1990s scholars began to identify and study social movements organized to confront the ... more During the 1990s scholars began to identify and study social movements organized to confront the `new global order'. Such movements have emerged in Mexico, Japan, South Africa and the USA. In the emerging literature organized to study these movements scholars have noted two characteristics that hold constant across them. First, while such movements oppose globalization, they tend to focus their criticism against their own governments for ushering in its reforms. Second, while the state is regarded as the enemy, these movements frame their politics against the state in nationalistic terms. In this paper we compare and evaluate the projects of `national' resistance in two social movements against the new global order-the Mexican Zapatista and the US Patriot Movements. To conduct our analysis we employ a post-structuralist approach. We argue that the category of nation is constructed and may take any number of forms, from the liberatory to the repressive. As such, we hold that the best way to evaluate nationalistic projects is to assess whether antagonism infuses constructions of `nation' and its spatial policing. In our empirical analysis we argue that the nationalistic discourse of Zapatismo, though not without problems, is agonistically constructed, creating a plural space for nation re(building). In contrast, discourses of patriotism are antagonistically defined, fostering exclusive views of nation and a rigid policing of its borders. We conclude by noting potential pitfalls in the Zapatista identity politics and potential progressive openings within the Patriot identity politic.
ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 2004
The next step was uncertaincritics might applaud my book, tear it to shreds, or worst of all simp... more The next step was uncertaincritics might applaud my book, tear it to shreds, or worst of all simply ignore it-but the hard work of writing it was behind me. After five years of research I was ready to bid the Patriot Movement farewell. I would no longer have to spend afternoons deciphering complicated conspiracy theories. I could make a valiant effort to rein in my coffee addiction. And best of all, my friends could finally have a conversation with me that did not involve a mention of guns, militias, or right-wing politics. This is not to suggest, of course, that I felt no fear or panic. I felt a great deal of both, but I was ready to move on. My book felt like a baby to me, and I like an expectant mother just past her due date. Of course, if we follow the metaphor, we know that birth is just the beginning. And so it has been for me. On the Fault Line has sparked debate; the critics have responded (Berlet 2004; Durham 2004; Flint 2004; Horton 2004). For me the feedback has been welcome. Commentary (even in disagreement) means someone took the time to consider my arguments and have a serious dialogue about them. I begin this piece, therefore, by extending heartfelt thanks to the participants in this virtual roundtable. And, although she is not a part of this forum, many thanks are also due my editor, Brenda Hadenfeldt, whose patience and support make such a forum possible in the first place. The comments of my critics are both thorough and wide-ranging. In this essay I will address three criticisms that struck me as particularly salient to the issue of right-wing politics today. In so doing, I hope to fine-tune some of the arguments I made in my book, stand firm on others, and 'fess up to the mistakes of still others.
Manchester University Press eBooks, Feb 19, 2017
Research on decommissioning usually falls within a larger literature on disarmament-demobilizatio... more Research on decommissioning usually falls within a larger literature on disarmament-demobilization-reintegration (DDR). Although much of the literature on DDR treats it as a single process, some scholars have narrowed in on the process of disarmament (or decommissioning as it was called in Northern Ireland). This work makes several assumptions. First, a process for disarmament is usually an integral part of most peace processes. Second, international third parties are crucial to the process. Third, failure to decommission quickly or in full faith is usually a sign that violence between parties will resume. This chapter argues that decommissioning in Northern Ireland’s peace process does not conform to theoretical expectations about the role of decommissioning. In Northern Ireland peace makers avoided establishing a detailed process for decommissioning because many worried such details would thwart a deal. Though the failure to decommission did have political consequences—the power sharing Assembly at the centre of the Agreement was shuttered for several years—it did not lead a resumption of violence between parties. Rather, delays in the process contributed to spikes in internal violence.
Political Geography, Mar 1, 2008
so severe, the casting of the religious subject so monolithic and nefarious, that Osama bin Laden... more so severe, the casting of the religious subject so monolithic and nefarious, that Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush are unjustly represented as two faces of the same phenomenon. References
Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Jul 1, 2004
Geography is not generally viewed as a 'source' discipline for political violence studies, but th... more Geography is not generally viewed as a 'source' discipline for political violence studies, but this paper begins with the presumption that geography is well disposed to teach courses on the subject. The key purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that engaging issues of political violence is useful for our pedagogy. In particular, teaching about political violence allows geography to address concerns arising from the 'crisis of representation'. It does so in two ways. First, it provides another venue for teaching about the 'the other' and 'othered places' in our curricula. Second, it also allows geography to challenge uncritical tropes about political violence as emerging from some peoples and places and not others. As a case study this paper overviews a course entitled Militia Movements in Comparative Perspective. This course was organized around a theoretical unit and four case study units. The case conflicts were chosen to represent conflicts that crossed ideological (right/left) and geographical (Global North/Global South) divides. The course structure is overviewed and a classroom discussion that highlighted questions about representation is described and analysed. The paper concludes by reviewing current efforts to address violence in the discipline, noting problems with these efforts, and suggesting alternatives to them.
Key Concepts in Political Geography
Lynne Rienner Publishers eBooks, Dec 31, 2004
Alternate routes: a journal of Critical Social Research, 2017
Introduction We don’t usually think of austerity2 as something that happens in booming cities. Th... more Introduction We don’t usually think of austerity2 as something that happens in booming cities. This is true even for cities like Washington, D.C., that have recent experience with formal austerity. Although Washington, D.C., was placed in federal receivership in 1995 and stayed there for six years, it is now more likely to appear on internet lists like “America’s Coolest Cities” (Carlyle 2014), “The Most Walkable Urban Metro Areas” (Leinberger and Lynch 2014), and the “Most Expensive US cities for Renters” (Avakian 2016). As the latter list suggests, however, recovery often creates a new type of austerity3 for poor and working class people. Instead of formal austerity (imposed in D.C.’s case by Congress), today’s austerity is more informal, often the result of cities’ decisions to foster development at all costs. In D.C. this austerity among riches is most
Journal of Urban Affairs, 2017
ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 2016
This intervention examines the recent militia take-over and occupation of the Malheur National Wi... more This intervention examines the recent militia take-over and occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Oregon. There is no consensus on how to place the group. Some commentators suggest the group is white supremacist. Others argue that it is animated by its members’ Mormon faith. Still others emphasize the group’s grievances with the Bureau of Land Management. I argue here that the Oregon militia’s politics cannot be understood with reference to one single identity position. I use recent work in geography on the role of white supremacy and settler colonialism as a jumping off point for this argument. While I agree that the logics of white settler colonialism are present in the Oregon standoff, I argue that we also need to focus on the anti-government rhetoric through which they are funneled and expressed. This rhetoric provides a veneer of legitimacy to the movement by obscuring the race and class based interests that underpin the movement’s goals. I...
British Politics, 2020
This article examines the challenges Brexit poses to the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) in Northern ... more This article examines the challenges Brexit poses to the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) in Northern Ireland (NI) by considering how political leaders frame the problem of reconciling Brexit with the GFA. Analyzing the Hansard record of four key debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2018 in the House of Commons (the first Withdrawal Agreement), we conclude that the Brexit debate reveals a distinct new threat to the peace accord: its nestedness in British politics. The primary objection MPs raised was that the withdrawal deal would undermine UK sovereignty. In fact, opposition to the multiple sovereignties that the GFA enshrined appeared to be one of the principal reasons for the withdrawal act's defeat. Second, MPs objected to the way the backstop's multiple exercise of sovereignty and multilateralism would impact the union between NI and Great Britain, if not its impact on NI itself. Indeed, they tended to decouple discussion of the backstop from previous violence or the peace process. Third, debate was heavily skewed in favor of Unionism, rather than the balanced and plural mechanisms typical of British policy. Fourth, MPs were not coherent in how they understood the GFA. We find that the British Parliament has departed markedly from its established pattern of bilateralism, bipartisanship and deference to government in dealing with Northern Ireland. The consequence is that the British parliament, rather than armed actors in the province, may well undo one of the most successful peace agreements and for reasons that have little to do with NI.
Uploads
Papers by Carolyn Gallaher