The Material Logics of Territorial Stigmatisation: From Urban
Devaluation to Urban Revaluation?
The concept of ‘territorial stigmatisation’ (Wacquant, 2007, 2008)
informs a growing body of critical urban research, exploring its crucial
links with gentrification (Gray and Mooney, 2011; Wacquant and Slater
2014; Kallin and Slater, 2014; Kirkness and Tijé-Dra, 2017). The logic
of territorial stigmatisation can be viewed as both social and spatial,
either via defamatory stereotyping of local residents or the
construction of a ‘blemish of place’ (Wacquant, 2007), with each
functioning to legitimise state-led, market-based landscape
transformation.
Arguably, sociological and symbolic explanations of stigma have come to
predominate in the literature (see Tyler 2013; Tyler and Slater,
forthcoming), addressing stigmatisation as a technology of control
relating to the abjection of raced, classed and other defamed subjects.
We seek to extend this literature through a deepened critical urban
political economy of territorial stigma, underscoring its eminently
material catalytic role in urban devaluation/revaluation strategies, and
the ensuing production of embodied socio-spatial inequalities.
Developing from previous work exploring the brute fact of devaluation as
a necessary if not sufficient condition for the accumulation of capital
(Marx, Luxemburg, 2003; Harvey, 1982; Smith, 1996), and territorial
stigmatisation (along with correlate discourses of blight and
obsolescence) as a neoliberal alibi for urban revaluation, we seek both
theoretical and empirical papers that engage with the themes below or
open up cognate areas of related inquiry:
• Devaluation as a central component of urban revaluation
• An analysis of the relation between the concepts of devaluation,
devalorisation and depreciation in urban transformation (cf. Smith,
2016)
• Methodological problems in defining the relationship between
territorial stigma and material urban transformation
• The deployment of discourses of blight and obsolescence in
gentrification processes (see Weber, 2002; Gray and Mooney, 2011)
• Territorial stigma and deconcentration/‘social-mixing’ policies (see
Crump, 2002; Newman 2004; Slater 2013)
• Territorial stigma and uneven development/the rent gap (see Gray and
Mooney, 2011; Kallin, 2017; Slater, 2017)
• Territorial stigma and disaster capitalism/spaces of exception
• Territorial stigma and public/social housing (Hastings, 2003; Goetz,
2012; Slater and Anderson, 2012)
• Territorial stigma and ‘ruins’
• Territorial stigma and spatial, creativity and environmental ‘fixing’
(or ‘accumulation by restoration’ [see Huff and Brock, 2017])
• Stalled revaluation; the logic of territorial stigma interrupted
• Territorial stigma and the targeting of raced, classed, gendered and
other defamed communities through material urban transformation
• Challenges to territorial stigma by resident communities
Please send abstracts of no more than 250 words (with title, author
affiliation and e-mail address) to Neil Gray ([log in to unmask]) and
Hamish Kallin ([log in to unmask]) by Monday 12th February 2018.
_______________________________________________________
[log in to unmask]
An urban geography discussion and announcement forum
List Archives: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/URB-GEOG-FORUM
Maintained by: RGS-IBG Urban Geography Research Group
UGRG Home Page: http://www.urban-geography.org.uk
|