THE UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX Department of Geography

GEOGRAPHIES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND SOCIAL CONFLICT (F8073) AUTUMN TERM 2014 (TEACHING BLOCK1)

2

Geographies of Social Movements and Social Conflict

Basic Information Code: F8073 Credits: 30 Level: 6 Module Convenor & Tutor Carl Griffin Email: Carl.Griffin@sussex.ac.uk Office/Tel: C310, 01273 877491 Office Hours: Thursday 4-5pm; Friday 2-3pm (and other times on appointment) Module Outline Social, cultural and political change does not just occur in ways that we are powerless to change, rather through social movements and social conflict groups acting outside of established political parties and institutions are increasingly important in effecting (or preventing) change, influencing public policy and political representation. Prior to addressing particular movements and moments of conflict, the module begins with an attempt to develop shared understandings of both what constitutes a movement, as well as what forms social movements and conflict can take. These ideas established, the module examines three key foci of conflict over the past 250 years drawn primarily, if not exclusively, from the Anglophone world: land and rural livelihoods; market and corporate capitalism; and, finally, conservation and the environment. Module Objectives By the end of the module the successful learner will have acquired: Knowledge and understanding:

1. Evaluate the influence of spatial and temporal scale upon societal and institutional change.

2. Evaluate role of organised protest in social and political change. 3. Synthesise accounts of past and present social movements in evaluating their

influence on shaping institutions, policies and practices. 4. Analyse the roles of methods of control and modes of contestation in shaping

human geographies. 5. Display knowledge of the nature of the discipline as dynamic, plural, transformative

and contested. Intellectual, practical and transferable skills:

1. The ability to evaluate a range of material and to communicate complex ideas. 2. Greater awareness of resources in the library, Global Resource Centre and www. 3. The ability to organise work as part of a group in the preparation of student-led

seminars and group presentations. 4. Enhanced report writing skills.

3

Assessment Methods This module is assessed by means of a 2,500-word report comprising 50% of the marks for the module and a ‘learning diary’, also comprising 50% of the module marks, Formative and summative 2,500-word report comprising 50% of the marks for the module. Please submit two copies of the report before 4pm on 13 November (Week 8) to the Global Studies School Office (C174). For details see below. Summative ‘Learning diary’ (c.2,500 words). Two copies to be submitted before 4pm on Thursday 11 December (Week 12) to the Global Studies School Office (C174). For details see below. Formative: Towards the production of the report, you will produce a report plan of no more than two sides of A4 for feedback only (not contributing to module mark). This is to be submitted in class on Friday 10 October.

Teaching Arrangements

Timetable We will meet on Fridays, 10am-1pm (Week 1: 10-11am; not Week 2) in JUB-144. In Week 2, we will meet on Monday (29 September) 9-11am in AS-0-01 (Aisin Seiki building) and Thursday (2 October) 3-6pm in FUL-202. The first class is Friday 26 September, 10-11am. Delivery The module will be delivered by lectures, a workshop and student-led seminars. Lectures Lectures will take the form of a c.1.5 hours followed by the seminar c.1.5 hours (Week 1: hour lecture; Week 2: 2 hour lecture) Workshop On Thursday 2 October between 3pm and 6pm there will be a workshop devoted to analysing social movement theories in practise as well as detailing the module report. Student-led seminars Students will be divided into groups of c. three and attend a 1.5 hour seminar in the scheduled weeks (see timetable on Sussex Direct). As noted, this follows immediately after the lecture. Attendance at these seminars is compulsory and will be carefully monitored. Seminars will provide an opportunity to analyse the ideas detailed in the previous lecture and at the start of the class and are geared towards the production of the learning diary (for which see below). In each seminar the groups will be given a question (or two questions) to answer and will then have to present their answer to the rest of the group in no more than two minutes as well as answer any questions other groups might pose. Each seminar will be based on the reading of two papers (see page 29). While the presentations will not be assessed per se, they will form the basis for the learning diaries.

4

Student-led seminars are designed to develop and improve your group working and presentation skills along with the more conventional academic skills of efficient reading and. Each week you will decide amongst the group the division of labour in terms of the areas each student will research and the responsibility for coordinating and producing the answer to the set question(s) and presenting the findings. This requires a coordination of efforts by all those involved. Neither your fellow students nor your tutor will tolerate anyone who is identified as not making an equal effort. This might sound harsh, but it is essential to the smooth running of student-led seminars. Online ‘clinic’ In Week 11 there will be an online ‘clinic’ to answer all your ‘learning diary’ questions. Overview of teaching and assessment pattern

Activity/Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Lecture

GLO

BA

L

ST

UD

IES

R

EA

DIN

G W

EE

K

Workshop

Seminar

Online ‘clinic’

Assessment PLA REP LD

PLA = Report plan; REP = Report; LD = ‘Learning diary’ Study Direct Site For this module you will be making extensive use of the Study Direct site. It contains most of the key reading for your presentations and forum through which you can communicate with your tutor. ________________________________________________________________________ ‘Report’ The report will take the form of a 2,500-word (not including references) analysis of the mission (‘purpose’), organization, methods and evolution/effectiveness of a particular social movement/social movement organization (SMO). It is up to individual students to decide upon a specific focus. The report will require extensive reading and detailed library/field-study. Merely describing your chosen social movement/social movement organization will not be enough to secure a good mark. Instead, your research will need to framed and analysed through reference to published academic research. You must clearly show evidence of critical analysis, evaluation, and an ability to synthesise a range of different resources (e.g. academic literature; reports; newspaper articles; social movement websites). The final submitted work must be your own and not the result of cooperation with others. Part of the workshop will be devoted to detailing the mechanics of the report. This will not only detail what precisely is required of you but will also relate modes of best practice. The workshop will also detail the marking criteria and as such will better position you to understand what level of understanding and engagement are required at each degree classification. You will need to submit a brief plan (maximum two sides of double-spaced A4) detailing your chosen topic, the potential sources involved and an outline of the literature(s) to

5

which you will refer. This plan will be submitted and assessed (see above). The feedback provided forms part of the formative assessment for the module. Whilst the plan is not marked – and as such does not contribute to the summative assessment of the module – it is expected that the feedback received will be, where appropriate, acted upon and clearly demonstrated in the submitted repor.t. The report requires references and a bibliography, and, where appropriate, illustration. The report needs to demonstrate a theoretical understanding of social movements and/or social conflict as well as a detailed knowledge of a specific movement/episode of conflict. In addition to brief a introduction – introducing your chosen focus and justifying its importance as a subject worthy of your consideration – and a brief conclusion, the following headings must be used. The relative importance given to each section should be determined by YOU and detailed in the plan:

1) Mission (‘purpose’); 2) Organization; 3) Methods (protest; marketing) 4) Effectiveness

‘Learning diary’: Social movements A-Z In contrast to longer learning diaries used to assess some other modules, the ‘diary’ for this module takes both a different form, is shorter (c.2,500 words), more formal, and summative (as opposed to formative) in nature. In short, you will need to:

Write an entry for every letter in the alphabet (from A through to Z) on some aspect of social movements or an episode of social conflict that we have covered in class or that you have read. Your coverage must relate to all three themes – as well as to theoretical approaches to understanding social movements.

In total you have 2,500 word (excluding references – I expect your entries to be fully referenced) to deploy as you see fit. Some entries could be as little as 10 words long (e.g. I: Incendiarism, protest practice. Critical tool in peasant struggles against dispossession.), while others might be as long as 500 words.

Your entries need to written in a precise, economical if not necessarily always ‘formal’ style (see below). They might relate to your reflections – hence the ‘learning diary’ format - changing opinions and attitudes. They might also relate to your personal (or family) activism.

Pay attention to ideas/movements/protests that you found most interesting.

You will need to pay particular attention to theoretical understandings, demonstrate knowledge of particular social movements and moments of social conflict, as well as the relationship between past and present protests.

You will need to demonstrate a strong, critical engagement with the module content and with appropriate wider reading.

You may not repeat the focus of your ‘Report’ as one of the entries.

Your A-Z needs to be both word-processed and fully referenced. The Learning Diary is specifically designed to encourage reflexivity upon your own learning and to facilitate a broad perspective during the term. It is a continuous engagement. You will not be able to concentrate on a few selected topics. Rather, it needs to reflect on all weeks of the module and should create linkages between the different

6

elements of the module. It should therefore demonstrate a cumulative understanding of the module’s material as we go along. The style of writing, as noted, will be different from an essay or a report. The understandings you relate can be provisional, with unresolved queries and first thoughts. In a more informal sense, the word ‘I’ or ‘we’ might be used more liberally than you might in a formal essay (for certain tutors). Note, however, your submitted writings should not take the form of diary entries, but rather follow the form detailed on the previous page. We will use the workshop to explore the diary in greater detail. It represents an opportunity for you to practice your style – and to gain formative feedback from me. Lecture and Seminar Pattern: Week 1:

Lecture Introduction: understanding social movements

Week 2:

Lecture Theories of social movements Workshop Theories of social movements

Theme I: Land and rural livelihoods Week 3:

Lecture Enclosure: the politics of land Seminar Opposition to ‘enclosure’

Week 4:

Lecture Captain Swing and the politics of rural poverty Seminar Was Swing a meta-movement?

Week 5:

Lecture A new social movement? The politics of the rural Seminar ‘New’ rural social movements

Theme II: Market and corporate capitalism Week 6: Global Studies Reading Week Week 7: Lecture Anti-corporate movements Seminar Moral economies II: globalising resistance

Week 8: Lecture Occupy

Theme III: Conservation and the environment Week 9:

Lecture The emergence of conservation discourses Seminar Conservation: from discourse to practice

BONUS ONLINE LECTURE:

Lecture Moral ecologies of the poor Seminar Dwelling as activism

Week 10: Lecture The politics of environmentalism in practice Seminar Environmental activism

7

Reading Lectures provide a foundation and introduction to each of the topics, but you will also need to read widely to supplement your lecture notes. Compulsory readings will be set for the seminars. Individual references are provided for each lecture (and supporting seminar), but the following works provide overviews of the major theories and movements we will cover in the module. There is no one set text for the module, but it is worth considering the purchase of the starred items. They are readily available in paperback.. No one book covers all of the material covered in the module, so you might want to club together to make any purchases. Archer (2000) is still useful for its easily accessible, historical coverage, though this is largely superseded by Griffin (2014). Crossley (2002) offers a still useful introduction, and della Porta and Diani (2006) an advanced understanding. Chesters and Welsh (2011) and Goodwin and Jasper (2009) are both excellent guides. It is my expectation that the reading lists provided will be used as a gateway to a particular topic. Whilst they will be extensive, they will not be exhaustive. Evidence of wider reading (and understanding) will be sought in all assessments. Classic texts – 50 years and older – are highlighted in light grey. Whilst ‘old’, these still offer important foundational knowledge. If in any doubt, start with starred (*) texts first. * Archer, J. 2000 Social Unrest and Popular Protest in England 1780-1840. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Byrne, P. 1997 Social Movements in Britain. London: Routledge. * Chesters, G. and Welsh, I. 2011 Social Movements: The Key Concepts. London:

Routledge Crossley, N. 2002. Making Sense of Social Movements. Milton Keynes: Open University

Press. della Porta, D. and Diani, M. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell * Goodwin, J. and Jasper, J. 2009 The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts.

2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Gregory, D. and Pred, A. (Eds.) 2007 Violent Geographies. London: Routledge. Griffin, C. 2014 Protest, Politics and Work in Rural England, 1700-1850. Basingstoke:

Palgrave. Pile, S. and Keith, M. (Eds.) 1997. Geographies of Resistance. London: Routledge. Sharp, J., Routledge, P., Philo, C. and Paddison, R. (Eds.) 1999 Entanglements of Power:

Geographies of Domination/Resistance. London: Routledge. Snow, A., Soule, S. and Kriesi, H. (Eds.) 2004 Blackwell Companion to Social Movements.

Blackwell. Staggenborg, S. 2012 Social Movements. Oxford University Press. Stevenson, J. 1992 Popular Disturbances in England 1700-1832. Longman. Tarrow, S. 2011 Power in Movement: Social movements and Contentious Politics.

Cambridge University Press. Tilly, C. 2004. Social Movements, 1768-2004. Paradigm.

8

Some useful web-sites: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ad15/PopularMovementsInternetResources.htm (‘Popular Movement’ Internet Resources) http://cbsm-asa.org (Homepage of the American Sociological Association Section on Collective Behaviour and Social Movements (CBSM)) http://www.indymedia.org.uk (Independent news web-site, featuring several well-written articles on social movements) http://culturalpolitics.net/social_movements/ (Resources for the study of ‘cultural’ social movements. Strong US focus) http://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com (Mobilizing Ideas blog)

Geographies of Social Movements and Social Conflict

Weeks 1-2: Understanding social movements/theories of social movements; and workshop Geographers; historians; anthropologists; psychologists; sociologists: all have struggled to define exactly what makes a social movement. These two lectures will, as such, not attempt to offer a definitive take on the conceptual essence of social movements, but will rather show that such meanings are fluid. According to Diani (1992), such an understanding suggests that social movements are:

A network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organisations, engaged in political or cultural conflict on the basis of a shared collective identity.

As such it will also be shown that it is often hard to precisely delineate between those acts which are part of a ‘movement’ and those acts which although discreet may be supported or justified by some wider social or community justice. From this standpoint it will be shown that an understanding of social movements is both inherently geographical and also something central to key concerns in contemporary human geography. These lectures will outline the key theoretical currents in social movement thought drawing upon a wide set of literatures from historians such as Charles Tilly and E.P. Thompson, philosophers such as Pierre Bourdieu, and anthropologists such as James Scott. From these theoretical vantages it will be shown that a geographical perspective offers a vital take on the understanding of both social movements and social change, and, moreover, that considerable insights can be gained by looking at such movements from a historical-geographical perspective.

9

Definition: social movement

Social movements are the organized efforts of multiple individuals or organizations, acting outside formal state or economic spheres, to pursue political goals within society. They may be organized around either particular groups — e.g. the working class — or particular goals — e.g. access to health care. Their demands may be focused on the state (e.g. the passage of new laws), on economic actors (e.g. wage demands), on society as a whole (e.g. the changing of norms relating to race or sexuality), or on any combination of these. Social movements present methodological difficulties because, as informal, voluntary associations, they are inherently mutable objects of study…

Social movements are best understood within a broader framework of social analysis. Thus, social movement theory understands them as phenomena within civil society — one of the three major arenas of action and conflict in modern societies, alongside the state and the economy…

Attention to social movements has grown rapidly in recent years. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union and widespread democratization in the Third World, civil society has emerged as a critical arena for contemporary social change and social theory. And social movements are perhaps the major institutions or modes of action within civil society, particularly when organized into networks of Non-Governmental-Organizations. The growth of social movements in the contemporary neo-liberal climate is often interpreted as a response to diminished state capacity or legitimacy: many of the regulatory and social welfare functions of the post-war state are now being shunted to civil society. In this light, recent celebrations of New Social Movements in the Third World as offering 'alternatives to development', need to be greeted cautiously. McCarthy, J. 2000 ‘Social movement’, in Johnston, R. et al (Eds.) Dictionary of Human Geography, Blackwell.

Definition: Geographies of resistance

Geographers’ use of the term resistance refers to three different, but interrelated, arenas of research: social movements; social protest; and, everyday and psychic forms of resistance. Thus whilst the word resistance is something of a catchall term and carries considerable intellectual baggage, it has come to serve as a useful mechanism by which a variety of different approaches to the study of social conflict, opposition to domination, and the assertion of power can be understood. What unites all such seemingly disparate studies is the key belief that not only is the study of resistance critical to understanding social and cultural change, but also that all geographies are forged by a negotiation between methods of control and modes of contestation. Or in other words, that geography is not a fixed ‘back-drop’ to social lives but instead is a transformative agent in itself. Thus, the where of resistance is important – though this might equally be in a figurative, psychic or virtual space – but of equal consequence is the fact that resistance is always mobilised through spaces and is thus shaped and given meaning by geography. Conversely, as the term social movements alludes to, resistances generate reconfigurations of spaces as the actants – I use this term deliberately as many resistances enrol not only humans but other non-human ‘things’ – and meanings move. For example, after the revolution of 1789 the Parisian Bastille was no longer understood as a space of oppression but instead as a symbolic place of liberation. This spatiality is often rather more complex and multi-layered with resistances generating multiple and constantly shifting meanings. A capitally intensive factory, say, can be transformed unknowingly to the management into a space of dissent by workers’ feigning

10

ignorance over quality procedures. In whichever way it is manifest, resistance is a profoundly spatial project.

The concept of resistance whilst having a long intellectual history in the broader social sciences and humanities is a relatively new field of study for human geographers. Thus whilst historians and sociologists have long studied the iconic American and French Revolutions – 1775-1783 and 1789 respectively, geographers interest is a more recent intellectual phenomenon. Whilst it is possible to locate traces of interest in geographies of resistance before the 1970s, most notably in the work of the nineteenth-century geographer Élisée Reclus, the so-called ‘radical turn’ brought the study of class struggle and urban social movements firmly to the fore of human geographical research. Central to this new enthusiasm were armed struggles in several developing countries, riots in American ghettos in the late 1960s and the ‘student’ riots in Paris – and elsewhere – in the late spring of 1968. Against such pressing problems, the abstract mathematical modelling of spatial science seemed extraordinarily socially inert.

Meanwhile ‘historians from below’, most notably Christopher Hill, Eric Hobsbawm, George Rudé and E.P. Thompson, through the application of Marxist theories had blazed a trail in the study of popular movements. Marxism’s central acceptance of the Hegelian concept of dialectics positioned social conflict as something central to all societies, and thus by definition to the study of human geographies. Class conflict, so many Marxists would suggest, is not only the inevitable product of dialectical tensions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat but also the result of the dialectical emergence of ‘anti-systems’ in opposition to the institutionalized state. This understanding that societies are never inert but always volatile due to their composition of competing social groups and diametrically opposed class interests necessarily places a strong degree of emphasis upon revolutionary change and associated social movements. David Harvey’s Social Justice and the City (1973), the book that blazed a trail in applying Marxist thought to the study of geographical change, offered a rather more nuanced approach. Indeed, the beauty of Harvey’s book – and the key to its huge intellectual influence in the discipline – was that whilst it embraced structuralist understandings and believed in the pursuit of one united democratic socialist movement, it offered for the first time a geographical take on Marxist thought. Moreover, its analysis of the North American city highlighted not potentially revolutionary actions but instead focused upon the resistances offered to the white, upper middle-class political and economic hegemony. Notwithstanding Social Justice and the City’s undoubted importance, there was no sudden surge in studies of resistance. Indeed, few of the possibilities suggested by Harvey’s analysis were fully explored by geographers at the time. With the arguable exception of the early work of Andrew Charlesworth and David Sibley, most geographers adopted a more straightforwardly Marxian analysis centring upon collective labor organization and class struggle. Thus whilst the rich possibilities for researching geographies of resistance were now well-understood, they were not widely adopted. Moreover, the field was fractured between those engaged in historical research and those working on the there-and-then. Indeed, whilst many radical geographers often sought to open their students’ minds to the world of resistance by turning for a copy of E.P. Thompson’s The Making of the English Working Class (1963) – a textual talisman to social historians and historical geographers – they more often than not failed to make parallel connections to what their historical geography colleagues were doing. The concurrent emergence of post-colonial studies and feminist geography in the late 1970s and early 1980s helped to renew interest in the less dramatic, more everyday forms of resistance. The shared perspective of the study of the ability of non-dominant groups to survive under – and even challenge – conditions of domination, placed a greater emphasis upon the ability of repressed individuals and groups to mobilize alternative ideologies in forging new social worlds. Such acts of resistance, so this perspective suggests, can take

11

many forms, not all of which have any visible manifestation, for instance mental resistance to psychic domination. Moreover, whilst some such protests might be recognised by oppressors as deliberate acts of resistance, other acts might either not be recognised (e.g. false compliance) or not be considered believable (e.g. anonymous political placards created by supposedly apolitical slaves). Thus whilst such resistances are necessarily motivated in response to a dominant power, they might not always seek to rebalance power relations. It has not escaped the attention of geographers that this analysis bears a strong resemblance to the work of anthropologist James Scott. The central premise of Scott’s seminal Weapons of the Weak is that whilst individual acts of insubordination and evasion make no headlines, just as millions of polyps create a coral reef so thousands of such acts create their own barriers of resistance. The spatiality of such protests inevitably occurs, so the analysis goes, within the realm(s) of domination, which in the case of Scott’s thesis were the plantations of north-western Malaysia.

This relationship has been called into questioned though on two central counts. Michel DeCerteau has asserted that the ‘tactics’ of resistance come from a place outside of the practices of domination but seek to ‘insinuate’ the realm of domination. Resistance thereby occurs in – or between – the fault lines of power, spaces beyond conventional surveillance. Or as Edward Soja labelled such ‘gaps’, thirdspace. It is important to note though that according to Foucault, as we all internalized the systems of surveillance used to assert power against us there are no gaps. Resistances occur therefore when we reject our self surveillance, a shift that is without bounds yet is not aspatial. What does not differ between Scott’s and DeCerteau’s analyses though are the shared emphases upon the malleability of identity. Individuals can take on multiple personas to suit different situations, for instance faux deferential efficiency in the company of management, foot-dragging resentment at other times. They might also assume an identity as a tool of resistance, for instance vegetarianism in opposition to factory farming, or use their identity as a position from which to protest against societal attitudes. Of course, the assumption of an identity does not necessarily need to occur in response to a local context. Indeed, mass (international) media and forms of electronic communication, not least the internet, have allowed for the distanciation between the ‘event’/’power’ that is being resisted and the ‘act’ of resistance. Being there and being known can be an irrelevance. As the recent worldwide demonstrations over the policies of the Burmese junta have highlighted, the fact that resistances can occur outside of both spatial and experiential contexts.

Through such understandings and intellectual positions, resistance became one of the key topics of the so-called cultural turn in human geography. The concept was not, however, without critics. In particular the tacit acknowledgement that signs of resistance could be read in all acts – the choice of one brand over another being a protest against a corporation, a raised eyebrow a personal slight – has been called into question. The first substantive challenge was raised, albeit implicitly, by Tim Cresswell’s research upon the spaces of transgressive practices. The conclusion from the case-studies in Cresswell’s In Place, Out of Place is that whilst to resist is intentional, to transgress is often unintentional, the crossing of a border/line which has no sign or meaning to the ‘perpetrator’. The act though still functions as a form of protest, for all transgressions are judged by those who react to the practice. To resist, conversely, requires the actor alone to make a judgement. As such, reading bodily practices as acts resistance – or otherwise – requires a keen attention to both the socio-legal and spatial contexts in which the practice is performed.

Another critique was issued by those who not only queried the worth of such an all-embracing concept – if everything could be considered to be an act of resistance, what’s left for other human geographers to study? –but also by those who found such definitions lacking political meaning. Indeed, political geographers have questioned whether some distinction ought not be made between, on the one hand, political struggles, and on the

12

other hand, cultural politics and personal resistances. This is not to deny the power or importance of such alternative forms of resistance, but instead is an acknowledgement of the increasing political potency and power of social movements in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Indeed, within the past decade there has been a discernible shift to empirically-rich studies of indigenous people’s movements in the developing world and anti-corporate/globalization protests. Whilst this trend has clear resonances with earlier studies within ‘radical geography’, recent research has been sensitive to ways in which current movements often utilise a range of tactics that combine overt protests and political demonstrations with other techniques that are not easily understood as being ‘organised’. For instance, Paul Routledge has described the anti-corporate, anti-globalization forum People’s Global Action not as an organization but instead as a ‘convergence space’ of other groupings whose primary function is to inspire acts that oppose corporate domination. Such groupings often rely upon the ‘flattened’ hyperlinked spaces of the internet to allow action to be negotiated in non-hierarchical, democratic ways and thus allow for oppositional tactics to be developed in secret through encrypted e-mails. In a sense therefore if Soja’s thirdspace meaningfully exists, a strong argument could be made that it is the internet.

Routledge’s concept of heterogeneous global grassroots ‘networks’ also acknowledges that, as the introduction to this essay alluded to, resistances invariably rely upon and often directly critique the social enrollment of non-human things. For instance, the so-called Luddite protests of the 1810s primarily attacked job-supplanting machinery rather than the machinery owners. Moreover, Actor [or Actant] Network Theory suggests that as the world can usefully be described as a network of all things – animals, machines, plants, buildings, money, people, etc – where power and meanings are generated by the relationship between things, then resistances are given form by the nature of the links in the network. Griffin, C. (2010) ‘Geographies of resistance’, in Warf, B. et al (eds.) Encyclopedia of Geography Sage

Readings Barker, C., Johnson, A., and Lavalette, M. 2001 Leadership and Social Movements.

Manchester: Manchester University Press. * Buechler, S. 2000 Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: The Political Economy

and Cultural Construction of Social Activism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Byrne, P. 1997 Social Movements in Britain. London: Routledge. Calhoun, C. 1995 ‘New Social Movements’ of the Early Nineteenth Century. In Traugott,

M. (ed.) Repertoires and Cycles of Contention. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. * Chesters, G. and Welsh, I. 2011 Social Movements: The Key Concepts. London:

Routledge * Crossley, N. 2002 Making Sense of Social Movements. Milton Keynes: Open University

Press Crossley, N. 2003 Even newer social movements? Anti-corporate protests, capitalist crises

and the remoralization of society, Organization, 10 (2), pp.287-305. Davies, A. 2012 Assemblage and social movements: Tibet Support Groups and the

spatialities of political organization, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37 (2), pp.273-286.

Davis, G. (eds.) 2005 Social Movements and Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13

della Porta, D. 1995 Social Movements, Political Violence, and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

* della Porta, D. and Diani, M. 2006. Social Movements: An Introduction. Blackwell Diani, M and McAdam, D. (eds.) 2003 Social Movements and Networks: Relational

Approaches to Collective Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dodgshon, R. 1998 Society in Time and Space: A Geographical Perspective on Change.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Edwards, G. 2008 The lifeworld as a resource for social movement participation and the

consequences of its colonization, Sociology 42 (2), pp.299-316. Edelman, M. 2001 Social movements: Changing paradigms and forms of politics, Annual

Review of Anthropology, 30 (1), pp.285-317. * Eder, K. 1985 The 'new social movements': moral crusade, political pressure groups, or

social movements?, Social Research, 52 (4), pp.869-890. Eder, K. 1993 The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in

Advanced Societies. London: Sage. Featherstone, D. 2008 Resistance, Space and Political Identities: The Making of Counter-

Global Networks. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, esp. introduction & conclusions. Giugni, M., McAdam, D. and Tilly, C. (eds.) 1999. How Social Movements Matter.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. * Goodwin, J. and Jasper, J. 2009 The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts.

2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Habermas, J. 1981 New Social Movements, Telos 49, pp.33-37. Habermas, J. 1987 The Theory of Communicative Action Volume II. Cambridge: Polity

Press. Hanagan, M., Page-Moch, L. and Brake, W. (eds.) 1998 Challenging Authority: The

Historical Study of Contentious Politics. Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Hogg, M. and Abrahams, D. 1998 Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge.

Jenkins, J. 1983 Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements, Annual Review of Sociology, 9 (1), pp.527-560.

Jenkins, J. and Klandermans, B. (eds.) 1995 The Politics of Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on States and Social Movements. London: UCL Press.

Klandermans, B. 1995 The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell. Larana, E., Johnston, H. and Gusfield, J. (eds.) 1994 New Social Movements: from

Ideology to Identity. Philadelphia, PE: Temple University Press. Leitner, H., Sheppard, E., and Sziarto, K. 2008. The spatialities of contentious politics.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33 (3), pp. 157-172. McFarlane, C. 2009 Translocal assemblages: Space, power and social movements,

Geoforum, 40 (4), pp.561-567. Marx, G.T. 1974 Thoughts on a Neglected Category of Social Movement Participant: The

Agent Provocateur and the Informant, American Journal of Sociology,80 ( 2), pp.402-442.

Marx, G.T. and McAdam, D. 1994 Collective Behaviour and Social Movements: Process and Structure. London: Prentice Hall.

McAdam, D.,McCarthy, J. and Zald. M. (eds.) 1996 Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Melucci, A. 1986 Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. London: Radius.

Melucci, A. 1996 Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14

Miller, B. 2000 Geography and Social Movements: Comparing Antinuclear Activism in the Boston Area. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Esp. chs. 1 (‘Missing Geography’) and 2 (‘A Geographic Model of Social Movement Mobilization’)

Miller, B. and Nicholls, W. 2013 Social movements in urban society: the city as a space of politicization, Urban Geography, 34 (4), pp.452-473.

* Nicholls, W. 2009 Place, networks, space: theorising the geographies of social movements, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 34 (1), pp.78-93.

Nicholls, W., Miller, B. and Beaumont, J. 2013 (eds) Spaces of Contention: Spatialities and Social Movements. London: Ashgate. On order.

Pile, S. and Keith, M. (eds.) 1997. Geographies of Resistance. London: Routledge. Piven, F. and Cloward, R. 1977 Poor People's Movements: Why they Succeed, How They

Fail. London: Random House. * Plotke, D. 1990 'What's so new about New Social Movements?', Socialist Review, 20 (1),

pp.81-102. Scott, A. 1990 Ideology and the New Social Movements. London: Unwin. Scott, J. 1985 Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press. Scott, J. 1990 Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press. Sharp, J., Routledge, P., Philo, C. and Paddison, R. (eds.) 1999 Entanglements of Power:

Geographies of Domination/Resistance. London: Routledge. Smelser, N. 1962 Theory of Collective Behaviour. New York: The Free Press. Staggenborg, S. 2012 Social Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tarrow, S. 2011 Power in Movement: Social movements and Contentious Politics.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tilly, C. 1985 Models and Realities of Popular Collective Action, Social Research, 54 (4),

pp.740-747. Wilson, D. 2001 ‘Introduction to forum on Byron Miller’s book, Geography and Social

Movements’, Political Geography, 20 (7), pp.923-924 – and the discussion that follows.

15

Geographies of Social Movements and Social Conflict

Theme 1: Land and rural livelihoods The first theme examines one of the most enduring, and hotly disputed, of all resource symbols, globally: land. The importance of rural space, economically, socially and culturally to both rural and urban populations alike will be demonstrated through three case-studies. Firstly, an examination of the idea and practice of ‘enclosure’, starting in the context of early modern Britain and shifting to more recent practical and intellectual invocations of the concept. Secondly, through an analysis of the forms of rural protest deployed in the period of the ‘Industrial Revolution’ and political revolutions in continental Europe, with a particular focus on the so-called ‘Swing Riots’. In so doing, we ask what makes a movement a social movement. Thirdly, and finally, we will consider the meanings of rural space in the 21st century through an analysis of the activities and policies of the Countryside Alliance. Week 3: Lecture: Enclosure: the politics of land/ Seminar: Opposition to ‘enclosure’ Readings The English historical context Allen, R. 1992 Enclosure and the Yeoman: The Agricultural Development of the South

Midlands, 1450-1850. Oxford: Clarendon. * Archer, J. 2000 Social Unrest and Popular Protest in England, 1780-1840. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. ch. 2 Blomley, N. 2007 Making private property: enclosure, common right and the work of

hedges, Rural History, 18 (1), pp.1-21 Bradstock, A. 2000 Winstanley and the Diggers, 1649-1999. London : Frank Cass. Bushaway, B. 1982 By Rite: Custom, Ceremony and Community 1700-1880. London:

Junction Books. chs. 3 and 5 – read selectively! Chapman, J. and Seeliger, S. 2001 Enclosure, Environment and Landscape in Southern

England. Stroud: Tempus. Charlesworth, A. (ed.) 1983 An Atlas of Rural Protest in Britain 1548-1900. London: Croom

Helm, section 2 Cowell, B. 2002 The Commons Preservation Society and the campaign for Berkhamsted

Common 1866–70, Rural History 13 (2), pp.145-161. Eastwood, D. 1996 Communities, protest and police in early nineteenth-century

Oxfordshire: The enclosure of Otmoor reconsidered, Agricultural History Review 44 (1), pp.35-46.

French, H. 2003 Urban common rights, enclosure and the market: Clitheroe Town Moors, 1764-1802, Agricultural History Review, 51 (1), pp.40-68.

Griffin, C. 2010 More-than-human histories and the failure of grand state schemes: sylviculture in the New Forest, England, Cultural Geographies, 17 (4), pp.451-472.

Griffin, C. 2014 Protest, Politics and Work in Rural England, 1700-1850. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Ch. 3.

* Gurney, J. 1994 Gerrard Winstanley and the Digger movement in Walton and Cobham, Historical Journal, 37 (4), pp.775-802,

Hammond, B. and Hammond, J. 1911/1920 The Village Labourer. London: Longman. chs. 1-4.

Hindle S. 1998 ‘Persuasion and protest in the Caddington enclosure dispute 1635-1639’, Past and Present 158

16

Hoskins, W.G. 1955/1985 The Making of the English Landscape. London: Penguin. – read selectively!

Howkins, A. 2002 From Diggers to Dongas: the land in English radicalism, 1649-2000, History Workshop Journal, 54 (1), pp.1-23.

* Linebaugh, P. 2010 Enclosures from the bottom up, Radical History Review, 108, pp.11–27.

McDonagh, B. 2009 Subverting the ground: private property and public protest in the sixteenth-century Yorkshire Wolds, Agricultural History Review, 57 (2), pp.191-206.

* McDonagh, B. and Daniels, S. 2012 Enclosure stories: narratives from Northamptonshire Cultural Geographies, 19 (1), pp.107-121.

Mingay, G. and Chambers, J. 1966 The Agricultural Revolution, 1750-1880. London: Batsford.

Neeson, J. 1993 Commoners: Common Right, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700-1820. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reay, B. 2004 Rural Englands: Labouring Lives in the Nineteenth-Century. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Reed, M. 1984 The peasantry of nineteenth-century England: a neglected class?, History Workshop Journal, 18, pp.53-76.

* Shaw-Taylor, L. 2001 Labourers, cows, common rights and parliamentary enclosure: The evidence of contemporary comment c.1760-1810, Past & Present 171, pp.95-126.

Shaw-Taylor, L. 2001 Parliamentary enclosure and the emergence of an English agricultural proletariat, Journal of Economic History, 61 (3), pp.640-662.

Tate, W. 1967 The English Village Community and the Enclosure Movement. London: Victor Gollancz.

Turner, M. 1984 Enclosures in Britain, 1750-1830. London: Macmillan. Other land enclosures/concepts Chaturvedi, V. 2005 Of peasants and publics in colonial India: Daduram's story, Social

History, 30 (3), pp.296-320. Chazkel, A. and Paley, N. 2011 Confronting the enclosure of the cultural commons: an

interview with Nina Paley, Radical History Review, 109, pp.137-152. Corson, C. 2011 Territorialization, enclosure and neoliberalism: non-state influence in

struggles over Madagascar's forests, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38 (4), pp.703-726. Greer, A. 2012 Commons and Enclosure in the Colonization of North America, American

Historical Review, 117(2), pp.365-386 Jeffrey, A., McFarlane, C., and Vasudevan, A., 2012 Rethinking enclosure: space,

subjectivity and the commons, Antipode, 44 (4), pp.1247-1267. Jones, R. 2011 Border security, 9/11 and the enclosure of civilisation, Geographical

Journal, 177 (3), pp.213-217. Maddison, B. 2010 Radical commons discourse and the challenges of colonialism, Radical

History Review, 108, pp.29-48. Malhi, A. 2011 Making spaces, making subjects: land, enclosure and Islam in colonial

Malaya, Journal of Peasant Studies, 38 (4), pp.727-746. Massey, D. 2011 Landscape/space/politics: an essay http://thefutureoflandscape.wordpress.com/landscapespacepolitics-an-essay/ Runge, C. and ; Defrancesco, E. 2006 Exclusion, inclusion, and enclosure: historical

commons and modern intellectual property, World Development, 34 (10), pp.1713-1727.

17

Sevilla-Buitrago, A. 2012 Territory and the governmentalisation of social reproduction: parliamentary enclosure and spatial rationalities in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, Journal of Historical Geography, 2012, 38 (3), pp.209-219.

* Vasudevan, A. McFarlane, C. and Jeffrey, A. 2008 Spaces of enclosure, Geoforum, 39 (5), pp.1641-1646.

Encyclopaedia entry: Opposition to enclosure

Enclosure, the process by which land held and farmed in common was converted into physically demarcated private property, can be dated back to at least 1235 with the passing of the Statute of Merton by Henry III and the English Barons. Over the next 650 years, the landscape of England – and Wales – went from being dominated by a system of open fields divided into strips, pasture commons and ‘wastes’, to one almost entirely made up of private fields buttressed by hedges and fences. In the intervening period, enclosure was achieved through four different means: achieving a unity of possession of open field strips; through agreements between landholders; through violent eviction; and from 1603, though hesitatingly at first, by Parliamentary Act. The process of enclosure did not occur in a linear and geographically even fashion. By the seventeenth-century the county of Kent was almost entirely free from common fields, two-thirds of Northamptonshire on the other hand was enclosed between 1750 and 1815. What has come to be known as the ‘enclosure movement’ thereby did not fulfil many of the conditions of a social movement. It occurred at an uneven pace over several centuries and had no continuity of personnel or methods. Moreover, large parts of England were effectively enclosed in the fourteenth-, fifteenth-, and sixteenth-centuries in the dash to sheep rearing in the aftermath of the Black Death (c.1347-52) and the depression following the currency debasement of the 1540s.

Under conditions of demographic collapse, enclosure could be affected with relatively little in the way of meaningful popular opposition. By the late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-centuries though the population had substantially recovered. Efficiency-seeking enclosures in lowland England were greeted by a wave of popular opposition from displaced small farmers and cottiers. Whilst there had been a resort to anti-enclosure rioting in the 1520s and 30s, it was the issue of a proclamation in June 1548 condemning ‘depopulating’ enclosures by 1st Duke of Somerset, Lord Protector of England after the death of Henry VIII, which provided the spur to a wave of protests. Initially, protests were scattered, but from the spring of 1549 protests diffused from Frome to much of the rest of Somerset and into Wiltshire and Hampshire. Another wave spread through Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire. By late July further waves had occurred in East Anglia, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, Leicestershire and Rutland, Yorkshire, Hampshire (again) and Kent. This was an intensive but short-lived series of protests (Charlesworth 1983: 29-30). Until the extraordinarily intensive but short-lived Midland Revolt of May and June 1607 further anti-enclosure riots were isolated and not part of a discernible movement. In the half century after the Midland Revolt, notwithstanding a palpable increase in the forms of local social control, most notably through the Poor Laws of 1598 and 1601, there was a discernible increase in anti-enclosure protests compared to the previous fifty years. These protests though in no sense represented anything other than localised movements with seemingly little connection between different pockets of resistance. During this period the emphasis of protestors also shifted, with the exception of the upland counties, from depopulating enclosures to sustained conflicts in Crown forests over commercial exploitation and disafforestation and over drainage-related enclosures in the fenlands. These protests continued into the Civil War (1642-9), intensifying again during

18

the Commonwealth (1649-53) when a semblance of stability allowed the physical processes of enclosure to resume. Furthermore, the attempt to eliminate the remnant Royal Forests during the Commonwealth and the Protectorate persisted into the Restoration and provoked particularly rancorous and sustained protests, especially on Cannock Chase and the Dorset-Wiltshire-Somerset borders. The final decades of the seventeenth- and the first half of the eighteenth-century were somewhat quieter, punctuated only by localised campaigns, most notably in the Midlands, the Forests of the Berkshire-Hampshire- Surrey borders (see Thompson 1975), the Forest of Dean and the so-called Leveller’s Revolt in Galloway in 1724. The period from the late 174os through to the end of the eighteenth-century witnessed a concurrent wave of parliamentary enclosure in the English Midlands, large-scale land clearances in the Scottish Highlands and a discernible increase in the level of enclosure protests. Neeson’s study of the opposition to enclosure in the east and central Midlands in this period has vividly demonstrated both the depth of popular antipathy to enclosure, the multiplicity of forms anti-enclosure protests took and the heterogeneous social mix of protestors (1993). Indeed, according to Charlesworth, wherever one finds opposition to enclosure in the English lowlands in this period non-subsistence commoners are found to have played a central role (1983: 50). Ultimately though, however deeply we dig in the archive, it is unlikely that the level of protest in the English core will supplant the depth and ferocity of protest in the British periphery where land clearances represented a complete economic and social reworking of rural society – and depopulation. In part, this is due to the fact that many lowland enclosures were forced through using the combined leverage of legal power, capital and the manipulation of the mechanisms of social control. Quite simply, in many places the balance of power in rural societies was so fundamentally altered that opposition to enclosure was necessarily forced underground (for an alternative perspective see Shaw-Taylor 2001). Where enclosures were carried out by agreement, there were also fewer opportunities to resist enclosure through the holding of meetings and the petitioning of Parliament. The aggrieved could turn to riot but this was to face a high risk of prosecution and blacklisting from local employers. Instead of riot, commoners and others who were likely to lose out under enclosure increasingly turned to incendiarism, sabotage and the sending of threatening letters.

By the late nineteenth-century there was little left to enclose save a few remnant forests largely given over to sylviculture, some scattered rural commons and several urban commons. Attempts to enclose the latter for the purpose of construction, especially on the fringes of London, provoked arguably the last wave of anti-enclosure protests. This time though neither riots or the tools of covert protest were deployed. Instead, in 1865 the Commons Preservation Society was founded, a pressure group far more closely akin to twenty first-century social movement organisations than anything found in anti-enclosure protests in the preceding 600 years. It was, and continues to be as the Open Spaces Society today, arguably more successful in achieving its objectives than any of its forebears too.

Week 4: Lecture: Captain Swing and the politics of rural poverty/ Seminar: Was Swing a meta-movement? Readings Archer, J. 2000 Social Unrest and Popular Protest in England, 1780-1840. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. ch. 2

19

Archer, J. 1990 ‘By a Flash and a Scare’ Arson, Animal Maiming, and Poaching in East Anglia 1815-1870. Oxford: Clarendon.

Charlesworth, A. 1979 Social Protest in a Rural Society: The Spatial Diffusion of the Captain Swing Disturbances of 1830-1831. Norwich: Geo Books.

Charlesworth, A. (ed.) 1983 Atlas of Rural Protest in Britain 1548-1900. London: Croom Helm.

Dyck, I. 1992 William Cobbett and Rural Popular Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. esp. chs. 3, 7 and 8.

Griffin, C. 2009 Swing, Swing redivivus or something after Swing? On the death throes of a movement, December 1830 - December 1833, International Review of Social History, 54 (3), pp. 459-497.

* Griffin, C. 2010 The violent Captain Swing?, Past and Present, 209, 149-180. * Griffin, C. 2012 The Rural War: Captain Swing and the Politics of Protest. Manchester

University Press. Griffin, C. 2014 Protest, Politics and Work in Rural England, 1700-1850. Basingstoke:

Palgrave. Ch. 6. Hammond, B. and Hammond, J. 1978/1911 The Village Labourer. London: Longman. * Hobsbawm, E. and Rudé, G. 1969 Captain Swing. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Jones, P. 2006 Swing, Speenhamland and rural social relations: the 'moral economy' of

the English crowd in the nineteenth century, Social History, 32 (3), pp.271-290. * Jones, P. 2009 Finding Captain Swing: protest, parish relations, and the state of the

public mind in 1830, International Review of Social History, 54 (3), pp.429-458. Navickas, K. 2009 Moors, fields, and popular protest in South Lancashire and the West

Riding of Yorkshire, 1800–1848, Northern History, 46 (1), pp. 93-111. Navickas, K. 2011, Luddism, incendiarism and the defence of rural 'task-scapes' in 1812,

Northern History, 48 (1), pp.59-73. * Navickas, K. 2011 Captain Swing in the North: the Carlisle Riots of 1830, History

Workshop Journal 71 (1), pp.5-28. Randall, A. and Charlesworth, C. (eds.) 2000 Moral Economy and Popular Protest:

Crowds, Conflict and Authority. London: Macmillan. esp. ch. 9. Randall, A. and Neuman, E. 1995 Protest, proletarians and paternalists: social conflict in

rural Wiltshire, 1830-1850, Rural History 6, (2), pp.205-227. Reed, M. and Wells, R. (eds.) 1990 Class, Conflict and Protest in the English Countryside

1700-1880. London: Frank Cass. esp. chs. by Charlesworth and Wells. Rule, J. and Wells, R. 1997 Crime, Protest and Popular Politics in Southern England 1740-

1850. London: Hambledon. esp. chs. 8, 9 and 10. Shakesheff, T. 2003 Rural Conflict, Crime and Protest: Herefordshire, 1800-1860.

Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, ch. 1 (‘Rebels without a clue?: the nature of rural protest in Herefordshire, 1800-60’)

Thompson, E.P. 1963 The Making of the English Working-Class. London: Penguin. chs. 7 and 16 (part II)

Wells, R. 1990 Social protest, class, conflict and consciousness, in the English countryside, 1700-1880, in Reed, M. and Wells, R. (eds.) Class, Conflict and Protest in the English Countryside 1700-1880. London: Frank Cass. Lengthy but excellent.

* Wells, R. 1997 Mr William Cobbett, Captain Swing, and King William IV, Agricultural History Review 45, (1), pp.34-48.

Definition: The Swing riots

Starting with the concurrent destruction of threshing machines in the Elham Valley area of East Kent and a wave of incendiary fires in the vicinity of Sevenoaks in the late summer of

20

1830, the so-called ‘Swing Riots’ went on to engulf most of rural southern, central and eastern England. Whilst the destruction of labour sapping threshing machines became, retrospectively, the hallmark of the movement, Swing took many forms including incendiarism, ‘mobbings’, political demonstrations, attacks on migrant labourers, even food riots (in Cornwall) and enclosure riots (at Otmoor, Oxfordshire). Notwithstanding the deployment of such seemingly disparate weapons of rural resistance, Swing protests universally sought to improve the living standards of the rural worker, whether through eliminating unemployment (attacking threshing machines) or increasing wages and poor relief payments. The first recorded attack on a threshing machine occurred at Wingmore, near Canterbury, on 24 August. However, it was not until 27 September that any arrests were made, by which time at least fifteen machines had been destroyed. Immediately thereafter the intensity of protest declined. The trial though acted to reinvigorate protest. That six of the seven men were sentenced to four days imprisonment against a maximum sentence of seven year’s transportation provoked a sensation. Following the “unparalleled lenity shown to the Destroyers of Thrashing Machines”, the words are those of Home Secretary Sir Robert Peel, overt collective protests spread beyond Elham overnight (Griffin 2004: 140). Initially, the new loci were Ash-next-Sandwich in East Kent, where machine-breaking dominated, and the area between Sittingbourne and Maidstone in mid Kent where wages demonstrations dominated. From the latter centre, protests literally spread into West Kent, and by 3 November Swing had diffused into the Kentish Weald and the Sussex border by the activities of highly mobile temporary ‘gangs’. Concurrently with this latter diffusion, an independent wave of open protests had started in the East Sussex protest centres of Battle and Brede on 1 and 5 November respectively (Wells 1990). In the Weald and the rest of East Sussex wages and poor relief ‘riots’ dominated, a reflection of both the lower uptake of threshing machines in the largely pastoral and hop economy and chronic levels of unemployment and pauperization. Between 8 and 14 November virtually every Wealden and southwest Kent parish rose. From here though there is little evidence to suggest that Swing physically diffused into the combined arable-pastoral of central Sussex. Instead, on 13 November labourers’ assemblages occurred independently in the northwest Sussex parishes of Kirdford and Wisborough Green. What then appears to have unfolded over the following three days is that other geographically noncontiguous incidents – though potentially connected by the diffusion of news and the actions of radical agents provocateurs (see Charlesworth 1979) – occurred throughout West Sussex, even spreading eastwards to the areas around Ringmer and Uckfield. At this point, the movement lost its geographical coherence. Instead of diffusing in an essentially linear way, Swing now had several concurrent foci. A wave of threshing machine-breaking in the vicinity of Chichester physically diffused into neighbouring Hampshire on 18 November, the day after a series of wages assemblages had started in the vicinity of Whitchurch in north Hampshire. In Berkshire Swing was first manifest in its overt form at Thatcham on 15 November in an incident inspired by Kentish and Sussex precedents but otherwise unconnected. The first manifestations of Swing in its overt form in Wiltshire occurred through a combination of physical spread and indigenous inspiration on Saturday 19 November. In all three south-central counties Swing spread quickly and, with the arguable exception of the Dever Valley in central Hampshire, burned brightly – and quickly. As Hobsbawm and Rudé in their seminal Captain Swing, the only comprehensive national account of the movement, suggest, it was in these counties that the movement reached its peak (1969: 170). This intensity though stiffened Governmental resolve and ultimately changed the pattern and depth of subsequent protests, if not checking protest altogether. Indeed, elsewhere in the south Swing was only manifest in an intensive form in isolated

21

pockets, most notably upon Cranborn Chase and in the Blackmore Vale in Dorset and in the vicinity of High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, where highly-mechanised paper mills were targeted. Intensive protests in East Anglia in December in many ways represented a separate movement informed as much by the cultural memory of the 1816 Bread of Blood riots and the 1822 wave of protests as they were by southern Swing. Threshing machines – long a focus of popular opprobrium in East Anglia– were a particular target. Rural workers also made common cause with the farmers in attempting to force tithe reductions from the clergy, a feature of protests in the Weald but ubiquitous wherever Swing was manifest in East Anglia. Notwithstanding East Anglia, few further overt protests occurred beyond 1 December, though there was a clear resort to incendiarism in response to the military-led repression in south-central England. Whilst it is currently unknown how many individuals were arrested, in the six counties where the government sponsored ‘Special Commissions’ of Assize, 992 criminal cases were heard. Here, the sentence of death was passed on 227 individuals, of whom five were actually hanged. 359 were transported to New South Wales or Van Diemen’s Land. 254 were jailed and two were fined. According to Hobsbawm and Rudé, the “draconian punishments distributed…[and] the deportation of hapless men and boys to antipodean semi-slavery” helped to thoroughly demoralize rural workers (1969: 281). In those counties where the government did not sponsor trials, including Kent and Sussex, Hobsbawm and Rudé suggest that Swing “died a natural death” (1969: 233). In some areas though, not least in the vicinity of Dover and Sittingbourne in Kent and in the Dever Valley in Hampshire, Swing lived on into 1831, whilst Swing-inspired protests occurred well into the summer of 1833. Griffin, C. (2009) ‘Swing riots, 1830, protests against’, in Ness, I. (Ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest: 1500 to the Present Wiley-Blackwell

Week 5: Lecture: A new social movement? The politics of the rural/ Seminar: ‘New’ rural social movements Readings Anderson, A. 2006 Spinning the rural agenda: The countryside alliance, fox hunting and

social policy, Social Policy & Administration, 40 (6), pp.722-738. Cloke, P. and Little, J. (eds.) 1997 Contested Countryside Cultures: Otherness,

Marginalisation and Rurality. London: Routledge. esp. introduction, though be selective!

Cloke, P., Marden, T. and Monney, P. (eds.) 2006 Handbook of Rural Studies. London: Sage. – be selective!

Marsh, D., Toke, D., Belfrage, C., Tepe, D. and McGough, S. 2009, Policy networks and the distinction between insider and outsider groups: the case of the Countryside Alliance, Public Administration, 87 (3), pp.621-638.

Milbourne, P. 2003 The complexities of hunting in rural England and Wales, Sociologia Ruralis 43 (3), pp.289-308.

* Milbourne, P. 2003 Hunting ruralities: nature, society and culture in 'hunt countries' of England and Wales, Journal of Rural Studies,19 (2), pp.157-171.

Mormont, M. 1990 What is rural? Or ‘How to be rural’: towards a sociology of the rural, in Marsden, T., Lowe, P. and Whatmore, S. (eds.) Rural Restructuring: Global Processes and their Responses. London: David Fulton.

* Reed, M. 2008 The rural arena: the diversity of protest in rural England, Journal of Rural Studies 24,2 (2), pp.209-218.

22

Scott, A., Christie, M., Midmore, P. 2004 Impact of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Britain: implications for rural studies, Journal of Rural Studies, 20 (1), pp.1-14.

Toke, D. 2010 Foxhunting and the Conservatives, Political Quarterly, 81 (2), pp.205-212. * Wallwork J. and Dixon, J. 2004 Foxes, green fields and Britishness: On the rhetorical

construction of place and national identity, British Journal of Social Psychology, 43 (1), pp.21-39.

Winter, M. 1996 Rural Politics: Policies for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment. London: Routledge. ch. 5

Woods, M. 1998 Researching rural conflicts: hunting, local politics and actor-networks, Journal of Rural Studies, 14 (3), pp.321-340.

* Woods, M. 2003 Deconstructing rural protest: the emergence of a new social movement, Journal of Rural Studies, 19 (3), pp.309-325.

Woods, M. 2005 Contesting Rurality: Politics in the British Countryside. Farnham: Ashgate. esp. chs. 1, 2, 5 and 7.

Woods, M. 2005 Rural Geography: Processes, Responses and Experiences in Rural Restructuring. London: Sage.

* Woods, M. 2008 Social movements and rural politics, Journal of Rural Studies, 24 (2), pp.129-137.

* Woods, M., Anderson, J., Guilbert, S. and Watkin, S. 2012 ‘The country(side) is angry’: emotion and explanation in protest mobilization, Social & Cultural Geography, 13 (6), pp.567-585.

Woods, M., Anderson, J., Guilbert, S. and Watkin, S. 2013 Rhizomic radicalism and arborescent advocacy: a Deleuzo-Guattarian reading of rural protest, Environment and Planning D: Society & Space, 31 (3), pp.434-450.

Some useful web-sites:

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/ (Countryside Alliance web-page)

http://www.countrysideallianceireland.org/ (Countryside Alliance Ireland website)

http://www.league.org.uk/ (Web-page for ‘The League Against Cruel Sports’)

http://www.farm.org.uk/ (‘The’ independent voice of farmers)

23

Geographies of Social Movements and Social Conflict

Theme 2: Market and corporate capitalism The social movement(s) exciting the most feverish comments today are the so-called anti-globalization protests, but what, exactly, are such protests striving for, or simply against, and are they a new phenomena or something more profoundly rooted in space and time? This set of four lectures attempts to answer these questions through a consideration of the changing relationship between capitalism and its resistors. The first lecture will examine E.P. Thompson’s concept of the ‘Moral Economy, and uses it to examine late 20th and early 21st century protests against recent, and further, trade liberalisation, not least through the lens of the Seattle riots in November 1999. The supporting seminar then looks at some constructive alternatives to corporate capitalism. The final lecture will then move on to consider various social movements that have offered a practical and constructive alternative to laissez-faire, value-free capitalism. It will be suggested that organisations like Fair Trade and concepts such as Farmers’ Markets offer such a vital critique and alternative. Week 7: Lecture: Anti-corporate movements/ Seminar: Moral economies: Globalising resistance Readings On ‘moral economy’ Archer, J. 2000 Social Unrest and Popular Protest in England, 1780-1840. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. ch. 3 * Bush, R. 2010 Food Riots: Poverty, Power and Protest, Journal of Agrarian Change, 10

(1), pp.119-129. Griffin, C. 2014 Protest, Politics and Work in Rural England, 1700-1850. Basingstoke:

Palgrave. Ch. 5. Randall, A. and Charlesworth, A. (eds.) 2000 Moral Economy and Popular Protest:

Crowds, Conflict and Authority. Basingstoke: Palgrave. esp. chs. 1 and 4. On order. * Thompson, E.P. 1971 The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth

century, Past & Present, 50 pp.76-136 (also reprinted in Thompson 1991 Customs in Common. Merlin: see below).

Thompson, E.P. 1991 The moral Economy reviewed, in Idem., Customs in Common. London: Merlin.

On the emergence of political economy Griffin, C. 2009 Placing political economy: organising opposition to free trade before the

abolition of the Corn Laws, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 2009, 41 (4), pp.489-505.

Schonhardt-Bailey, C. 2006 From the Corn Laws to Free Trade: Interests, Ideas, and Institutions in Historical Context. Schonhardt-Bailey, C. 2006 From the Corn Laws to Free Trade: Interests, Ideas, and Institutions in Historical Context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. On order.

* Sheppard, E. 2005 Constructing free trade: from Manchester boosterism to global management, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30 (2), pp.151-172.

24

Winch, D. 1996 Riches and Poverty: An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1750-1834. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Readings Starr, A. 2000 Naming the Enemy: Anti-corporate Movements Confront Globalization.

London: Zed Books. * Broad, R. and Heckscher, Z. 2003 Before Seattle: the historical roots of the current

movement against corporate-led globalization, Third World Quarterly, 24 (4), pp.713-728.

Clark, J. and Themudo, N. 2006 Linking the web and the street: Internet-based "dotcauses" and the "anti-globalization" movement, World Development, 34 (1), pp.50-74.

Crossley, N. 2002 Global anti-corporate struggle: a preliminary analysis, British Journal of Sociology, 53 (4), pp.667-691.

* Crossley, N. 2003 Even newer social movements? Anti-corporate protests, capitalist crises and the remoralization of society, Organization, 10 (2), pp.287-305.

De Bakker et al, 2013 Social movements, civil society and corporations: taking stock and looking ahead, Organization Studies, 34 (5-6), pp.573-593.

Della Porta, D. and Tarrow, S. (eds.) 2004 Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Rowman & Littlefield.

Eschle, C. and Maiguascha, B. (eds.) 2005 Critical Theories, International Relations and 'the Anti-Globalisation Movement' : The Politics Of Global Resistance. London: Routledge.

* Featherstone, D. 2003 Spatialities of trans-national resistance to globalisation: the maps of grievance of the inter-continental caravan, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28 (4), pp.404-421.

Featherstone, D. 2008 Resistance, Space and Political Identities: The Making of Counter-Global Networks. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, chs. 5, 6 & 7. On order.

Hardt, M. and Negri, A. 2000 Empire. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press. Harvey, D. 2003 The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hertz, N. 2002 The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy.

London: Heinemann. Ibrahi J. 2012 The struggle for symbolic dominance in the British ‘anti-capitalist movement

field’, Social Movement Studies, 12 (1), pp.1-18. Klein, N. 2001 No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs. London: Flamingo. Klein, N. 2002 Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalisation

Debate. London: Flamingo. Kohler, B. and Wiisen, M. 2003 Glocalizing protest: urban conflicts and global social

movements, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27 (4), pp. 942–951.

McFarlane, T. and Hay, I. 2003 The Battle for Seattle: protest and popular geopolitics in the Australian newspaper, Political Geography, 22 (2), pp.211-232.

Melucci, A. 1996 Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Owens, L. and Palmer, L. 2003 Making news: anarchist counter-public relations on the World Wide Web, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20 (4), pp.335-361..

Routledge, P. 2000 ‘Our resistance will be as transnational as capital’: convergence space and strategy in globalising resistance, GeoJournal, 52 (1), pp.25-33.

Routledge, P. 2002 'Resisting and reshaping destructive development: social movements and globalising networks' in Johnston, R., Taylor, P., and Watts, M. (eds.) Geographies of Global Change. Oxford: Blackwell.

25

* Routledge, P. 2003 Convergence space: process geographies of grassroots globalization networks, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographer, 28 (3), pp.333-349.

* Smith, J. 2001 ‘Globalising resistance’, Moblization 6, 1. Copy on Study Direct. Susser, I 2006 Global visions and grassroots movements: an anthropology perspective,

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30 (1), pp.212-218. Alternative systems: Fair Trade Barham, B., Callenes, M., Gitter, S., Lewis, J. and Weber, J. 2011 Fair Trade/ organic

coffee, rural livelihoods, and the “agrarian question”: southern Mexican coffee families in transition, World Development, 39 (1), pp.134-145.

Clarke, N., Barnett, C., Cloke, P. and Malpass, A. 2007 The political rationalities of fair-trade consumption in the United Kingdo’, Politics and Society, 35 (4), pp.583-607.

Cook, I. 2006 Geographies of food: following the thing, Progress in Human Geography, 30 (5), pp.655-666.

Hilson, G. 2008 ‘Fair trade gold': Antecedents, prospects and challenges, Geoforum 39 (1), pp.386-400.

Hudson, I. and Hudson, M. 2003 Removing the veil? commodity fetishism, fair trade, and the environment, Organization and Environment, 16 (4), pp.413-430.

Hughes, A. 2005 Geographies of exchange and circulation: alternative trading spaces, Progress in Human Geography, 29 (4), pp.496-504.

Hughes, A 2005 Corporate strategy and the management of ethical trade: the case of the UK food and clothing retailers, Environment and Planning A, 37 (7), pp.1145-1163.

Hughes, A. 2006 Learning to trade ethically: Knowledgeable capitalism, retailers and contested commodity chains, Geoforum 37 6), pp.1008-1020.

Leclair, M. 2002 Fighting the tide: Alternative trade organisations in the era of global free trade, World Development, 30 (6), pp.949-958.

Morris, K., Mendez, V. and Olson, M. "Los meses flacos': seasonal food insecurity in a Salvadoran organic coffee cooperative, Journal of Peasant Studies, 40 (2), pp.423-446.

Raynolds, L. 2012 Fair Trade: Social regulation in global food markets, Journal of Rural Studies, 28 (3), pp.276-287.

Richardson-Ngwenya, P. and Richardson, B. 2013 Documentary film and ethical foodscapes: three takes on Caribbean sugar, Cultural Geographies, 20 (3), pp. 330-356.

* Trentman, F. 2007 Before "fair trade": empire, free trade, and the moral economies of food in the modern world, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25 (6), pp. 1079-1102.

Wilkinson, J. 2011, From fair trade to responsible soy: social movements and the qualification of agrofood markets, Environment and Planning A, 43 (9), pp.2012-2026.

Farmers’ markets Chalmers, L., Joseph, A. and Smithers (2009), Seeing Farmers' Markets: Theoretical and

Media Perspectives on New Sites of Exchange in New Zealand, Geographical Research, 47 (3), pp.320-330.

Dowler, E., Kneafsey, M., Cox, R. and Holloway, L. 2009, ‘Doing food differently’: reconnecting biological and social relationships through care for food, The Sociological Review, 57 (supplement 2) pp.200-221.

26

* Gonzalez, S. and Waley, P. 2013 Traditional retail markets: the new gentrification frontier?, Antipode, 45 (4), pp.965-983.

Hayden, J. and Buck, D. 2012 Doing community supported agriculture: Tactile space, affect and effects of membership, Geoforum, 43 (2), pp.332-341.

Hinrichs, C. 2000 Embeddedness and local food system: notes on two types of direct agricultural market, Journal of Rural Studies, 16 (3), pp.295-303.

Hinrichs, C. 2003 The practice and politics of food system localization, Journal of Rural Studies 19 (1), pp.33-45.

Hinrichs C., Gillespie G., Feenstra G. 2004 Social learning and innovation at retail farmers' markets, Rural Sociology 69 (1), pp. 31-58.

Holloway, L. and Kneafsey, M. 2000 Reading the space of the farmers’ market: a preliminary investigation from the UK, Sociologia Ruralis 40 (3), pp. 285-299.

Jackson, P., Ward, N. and Russell, P. 2009 Moral economies of food and geographies of responsibility, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 34 (1), pp.12-24.

Kirwan, J. 2004 Alternative strategies in the UK agro-food system: Interrogating the alterity of farmers' markets, Sociologia Ruralis, 44 (4) pp.395-415.

Little, R., Maye, D. and Ilbery, B. 2010 Collective purchase: moving local and organic foods beyond the niche market, Environment and Planning A, 42 (8), pp. 1797-1813.

Week 8: Lecture: Occupy/Seminar: Occupation as protest Readings Anduiza, E., Cristancho, C., and Sabucedo, J.M. 2014 Mobilization through online social

networks: the political protest of the indignados in Spain, Information,

Communication & Society,17 (6), 750-764.

Arenas, I. 2014 Assembling the multitude: material geographies of social movements from Oaxaca to Occupy, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32 (3), pp.433-449.

Bennett, J. 2013 Moralising class: A discourse analysis of the mainstream political response to Occupy and the August 2011 British riots, Discourse & Society, 24 (1), pp.27-45.

Breau, S. 2014 The Occupy Movement and the Top 1% in Canada, Antipode, 46 (1), pp. 13-33.

* Calhoun, C. 2013 Occupy Wall Street in perspective, British Journal of Sociology, 64 (1), pp.26-38.

Gitlin, T. 2013, Occupy's predicament: the moment and the prospects for the movement, British Journal of Sociology, 64 (1), pp.3-25.

Gleason, B. 2013 #Occupy Wall Street: Exploring Informal Learning About a Social Movement on Twitter, American Behavioral Scientist, 57 (7), pp.966-982.

Hardesty, M. 2012 ‘Signs and banners of Occupy Wall Street’, Critical Quarterly 54 (4), pp.23-27.

* Hopkins, P., Todd, L. and Occupation, N. 2012 Occupying Newcastle University: student resistance to government spending cuts in England, Geographical Journal, 178 (2), pp.104-109.

Jeffrey, J. 2012 Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: Social media, public space, and emerging logics of aggregation, American Ethnologist, 39, (2), pp.259-279.

Klein, N. 2012 Occupy Wall Street: the most important thing in the world now, Critical Quarterly 54 (2), pp.1-4.

27

Kohn, M. 2013 Privatization and Protest: Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Toronto, and the Occupation of Public Space in a Democracy, Perspectives on Politics, 11 (1), pp.99-110.

Langman, L. 2013 Occupy: A new new social movement, Current Sociology, 61 (4, special issue), pp. 510-524.

Maharawal, M. 2013 Occupy Wall Street and a Radical Politics of Inclusion, Sociological Quarterly, 54 (2), pp.177-181

Milkman, R. Lewis, P. and Luce, S. 2013 The Genie's out of the Bottle: Insiders' Perspectives on Occupy Wall Street, Sociological Quarterly, 54 (2), pp.194-198.

Williamson, A. 2012 ‘The space of occupation’, Critical Quarterly 54 Also see the following papers from a special issue of Social Movement Studies in 2012

(vol 11, issue 3-4): * Barker, A. 2012 Already Occupied: Indigenous Peoples, Settler Colonialism and the

Occupy Movements in North America * Castañeda, E. The Indignados of Spain: A Precedent to Occupy Wall Street Gledhill, J. Collecting Occupy London: Public Collecting Institutions and Social Protest

Movements in the 21st Century Guzman-Concha, C. The Students' Rebellion in Chile: Occupy Protest or Classic Social

Movement? Halvorsen, S. Beyond the Network? Occupy London and the Global Movement Juris, J. Ronayne, M. Shokooh-Valle, F. and Wengronowitz, R. Negotiating Power and

Difference within the 99% Kerton, S. Tahrir, Here? The Influence of the Arab Uprisings on the Emergence of Occupy * Pickerill, J. and Krinsky, J. 2012 Why Does Occupy Matter? Schein, R. Whose Occupation? Homelessness and the Politics of Park Encampments Smith, J. and Glidden, B. 2012 Occupy Pittsburgh and the Challenges of Participatory

Democracy, Social Movement Studies, 11 (3-4) * Uitermark, J. and Nicholls, How Local Networks Shape a Global Movement: Comparing

Occupy in Amsterdam and Los Angeles

28

Geographies of Social Movements and Social Conflict

Theme 3: The Environment and Conservation Whilst the geographer David Featherstone has suggested that many rural protest movements betrayed a strong environmentalism, such notions were largely peripheral to their key aims and objectives. The final theme of environment and conservation will attempt, therefore, to offer a more grounded interpretation of the ways in which the ‘green movement’, as we know it today, developed. In the first lecture and supporting seminar we will analyse the historical roots of the environmental movement through a case-study of the English Lake District and Manchester, with a particular emphasis upon the new forms of protest deployed. Lecture two and its supporting seminar examines Karl Jacobcy’s concept of ‘moral ecology’ and dwelling as a form of activism. The final lecture and seminar will explore more recent developments, focusing on the organisational structures and tactics deployed by ‘social movement organisations’, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, and ‘social movement disorganisations’, such as Earth First!. Week 9: Lecture: The emergence of conservation discourses/ Seminar: Conservation: from discourse to practice Readings * Anderson, B. 2011 A liberal countryside? The Manchester Ramblers' Federation and the

‘social readjustment’ of urban citizens, 1929-1936, Urban History, 38 (1), pp.84-102. Baigent, E. 2011 ‘God's earth will be sacred’: religion, theology, and the open space

movement in Victorian England, Rural History, 22 (1), pp.31-58. Coupe, L. (ed.) 2000 The Green Studies Reader: From Romanticism to Ecocriticism.

London: Routledge. * Hey, D. 2011 Kinder Scout and the legend of the Mass Trespass, Agricultural History

Review, 59 (2), pp.199-216. * Cowell, B. 2002 The Commons Preservation Society and the campaign for Berkhamsted

Common 1866–70, Rural History, 13 (2), pp.145-161. Fedden, R. 1974 The National Trust: Past and Present. London: Cape. Harker, B. 2005 ‘The Manchester Rambler': Ewan MacColl and the 1932 Mass Trespass,

History Workshop Journal, 59 (1), pp.219-28. Hill, W. 1956 Octavia Hill: Pioneer of the National Trust and Housing Reformer. London:

Hutchinson. Hilton, T. 2000 John Ruskin: the Later Years. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lees-Milne, J. (ed.) 1948 The National Trust: a Record of Fifty Years’ Achievement.

London: London: Batsford. MacKenzie, J. 1988 The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation, and British Imperialism.

Manchester: Manchester University Press. Matless, D. 2001 Landscape and Englishness. London: Reaktion. * Ranlett, J. 1983 ‘Checking nature's desecration’: late-Victorian environmental

organization, Victorian Studies, 26 (2), pp.197-222. * Ritvo, H. 2009 The Dawn of Green: Manchester, Thirlmere, and Modern

Environmentalism. University of Chicago Press. On order. Roberts, J. 2013 Gladstonian Liberalism and Environment Protection, 1865–76, English

Historical Review 128 (531), pp.292-322. Squire, S. 1993 Valuing countryside - reflections on Beatrix Potter tourism, Area 25 (1),

pp.5-10. Taylor, A. 1998 Victorian eco-warriors, History Today 48, 2

29

Thomas, K. 1983 Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800. Penguin.

Thomson, K. 2007 Beatrix Potter, conservationist, American Scientist, 95 (3), pp.210-212. Walton, J. and Wood, J. (eds) 2013 The Making of a Cultural Landscape: The English

Lake District as Tourist Destination, 1750-2010. Farnham: Ashgate. On order. White, G 1788-9/1977 The Natural History of Selborne. London: Penguin. Winter, J. 1999 Secure from Rash Assault: Sustaining the Victorian Environment. Berkley,

CA: University of California Press. Not in the library but a good read nonetheless: L. Lear. 2008 Beatrix Potter: The Extraordinary Life of a Victorian Genius. London:

Penguin. (Originally published as: Beatrix Potter, a Life in Nature). On the environmentalism and bounded nature of romanticism: Bate, J. 1991 Romantic Ecology: Wordsworth and the Environmental Tradition. London:

Routledge. Hess. S. 2012. William Wordsworth and the Ecology of Authorship. Charlottesville, VA:

University of Virginia Press. On order. Spear, J. 1995 A tour to the lakes in Cumberland: John Ruskin’s diary for 1830, Victorian

Studies ,38 (2), pp.313-315. Online bonus lecture: Moral ecologies of the poor Bassett, T. 1988 The political ecology of peasant-herder conflicts in the Northern Ivory

coast, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78 (3), pp. 453-472. Featherstone, D. 2007 Skills for heterogeneous associations: the Whiteboys, collective

experimentation and subaltern political ecologies, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25 (2), pp.284-306.

Griffin, C. 2008 Protest practice and (tree) cultures of conflict: understanding the spaces of ‘tree maiming’ in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century England, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40 (1), pp.91-108.

Griffin, C. 2008 ‘“Cut down by some cowardly miscreants”: plant maiming, or the malicious cutting of flora, as an act of protest in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century rural England’, Rural History, 19:1

* Griffin, C. 2010 More-than-human histories and the failure of grand state schemes: sylviculture in the New Forest, England, Cultural Geographies, 17 (4), pp.451-472.

Hussain, S. 2010 Sports-hunting, fairness and colonial identity: collaboration and subversion in the northwestern frontier region of the British Indian Empire, Conservation and Society, 8 (2), p.112-126.

Jacoby, K. 1997 Class and Environmental History, Environmental History, 2 (3), pp.324-342.

* Jacoby, K. 2003 Crimes Against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation. California University Press. On order.

* Massey, D. 2011 Landscape/space/politics: an essay http://thefutureoflandscape.wordpress.com/landscapespacepolitics-an-essay/

Matless, D., Merchant, P. and Watkins, C. 2005 Animal landscapes: otters and wildfowl in England 1945–1970, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30 (2), pp.191-205.

30

Robbins, P. 2006 The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone, Geoforum 37 (2), pp.185-199.

* Scott, J. 1985 Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Short, B. 1999 Conservation, class and custom: lifespace and Conflict in a nineteenth-century forest environment, Rural History 10 (2), pp.127-154.

* Short, B. 2004 Environmental politics, custom and personal testimony: memory and lifespace on the late Victorian Ashdown Forest, Sussex, Journal of Historical Geography, 30 (3), pp.470-495.

Simon, L., Clement, V. and Pech, P. 2007 Forestry disputes in provincial France during the nineteenth century: the case of the Montagne de Lure, Journal of Historical Geography, 33 (2), pp.335-351.

Tubbs, C. 1965 The development of the smallholding and cottage stock-keeping economy of the New Forest, Agricultural History Review, 13 (1), pp.23-39.

Week 10: Lecture: The politics of environmentalism in practice/ Seminar: Environmental activism Readings * Anderson, J. 2004 Spatial politics in practice: the style and substance of environmental

direct action, Antipode 36 (1), pp.106-125. Agrawal, A. 2005 Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of

Subjects. Durham, N.C. : Duke University Press. Barry, J. 1999 Rethinking Green Politics: Nature, Virtue and Progress. London: Sage. Betz, H. 1989 The Postmodern challenge: from Marx to Nietzsche in the West German

Alternative and Green Movement, History of European Ideas,11, pp.815-830. Carmin, J. and Balser, D. 2002 Selecting repertoires of action in environmental movement

organizations - an interpretive approach, Organization & Environment, 15 (4), pp.365-388.

Carson, R. 1962 Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Dieter, R. 1995 ‘Ecological protest as calculated law-breaking Greenpeace and Earth First!

in comparative perspective’, in Rudig, W. (ed.) Green Politics * Doherty, B. 1999 Paving the way: the rise of direct action against road-building and the

changing of British environmentalism, Political Studies, 47 (2), pp.275-291. Doyle, T. and McEachern, D. 2001 Environment and Politics. London: Routledge. Eden, S. 2002 Faking it? The multiple meanings of environmental restoration near Twyford

Down, Cultural Geographies, 9 (3), pp.313-333. Eder, K. 1993 The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in

Advanced Societies. London: Sage. Harter, J. 2004 Environmental justice for whom? Class, new social movements, and the

environment: A case study of Greenpeace Canada, 1971-2000, Labour-le Travail, 54, pp.83-119.

* London, J. 1998 Common roots and entangled limbs: Earth First! And the growth of post-wilderness environmentalism on California’s North Coast, Antipode 30 (2), pp.155-176.

Martell, L. 1994 Ecology and Society: an Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press. North, P. 1998 ‘Save our Solsbury!’ The anatomy of an anti-roads protest, Environmental

Politics 7 (3), p.1-25. * North, P. 2011 The politics of climate activism in the UK: a social movement analysis,

Environment and Planning A, 43 (7), pp.1581-1598.

31

Norton, P. 2003 A critique of generative class theories of environmentalism and of the labour-environmentalist relationship, Environmental Politics, 12 (4), pp.96-119.

Pepper, D. 1996 Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Porritt, J. and Winner, D. 1989 The Coming of the Greens. London: Fontana. Radcliffe, J. 2000 Green Politics: Dictatorship or Democracy? Basingstoke: Palgrave. Raphael Schlembach, R. 2011 How do radical climate movements negotiate their

environmental and their social agendas? A study of debates within the Camp for Climate Action (UK), Critical Social Policy, 31 (2), pp.194-215.

Shantz, J. 2003 Scarcity and the emergence of fundamentalist ecology, Critique of Anthropology, 23 (2), pp.144-154.

Smith, G. 2003 Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. London: Routledge. Wall, D. 1999 Earth First! and the Anti-roads Movement Radical Environmentalism and

Comparative Social Movements. London: Routledge * Wall, D. 1999 Mobilising earth first! In Britain, Environmental Politics, 8 (1), pp.81-100.

Geographies of Social Movements and Social Conflict

Conclusion Some thoughts:

An appreciation that all geographies are generated by a negotiation between methods of control and modes of contestation

A recognition that social change is neither aspatial nor something that passively

occurs

An understanding that past geographies are not ‘dead’ geographies, rather they actively inform contemporary human geographies

An ability to comprehend the ways in which geography is a transformative agent

rather than merely something produced Think about:

- the different protest practices considered in the three different themes. What of their examining their geographies, temporalities and efficacies?

- what we understand, in light of what has gone before, about social change and people’s attempts to provoke, or resist, change? [Movements and protests] occur with regularity. They cluster in time; they cluster in certain cultural areas; they occur with greater frequency amongst certain social groupings…This skewing in time and place invites explanation: Why do collective episodes occur where they do, when they do, and in the ways they do?’ (Smelser, 1962 cited in Crossley, 2002, p.9)

Geographies of Social Movements and Social Conflict

32

Set seminar readings: Week 3 (seminar 1): Opposition to ‘enclosure’ McDonagh, B. and Daniels, S. 2012 Enclosure stories: narratives from Northamptonshire

Cultural Geographies, 19 (1), pp.107-121. Linebaugh, P. 2010 Enclosures from the bottom up, Radical History Review, 108, pp.11–27. Week 4 (seminar 2): Was Swing a meta-movement? Jones, P. 2009 ‘Finding Captain Swing: Protest, Parish Relations, and the State of the

Public Mind in 1830’, International Review of Social History, 54 (3) Navickas, K. 2011 Captain Swing in the North: the Carlisle Riots of 1830, History

Workshop Journal 71 (1), pp.5-28. Week 5 (seminar 3): ‘New’ rural social movements Reed, M. 2008 The rural arena: the diversity of protest in rural England, Journal of Rural

Studies 24,2 (2), pp.209-218. Woods, M. 2003 ‘Deconstructing rural protest: the emergence of a new social movement’,

Journal of Rural Studies 19 Week 7 (seminar 4): Moral economies: Globalising resistance Featherstone, D. 2003 Spatialities of trans-national resistance to globalisation: the maps of

grievance of the inter-continental caravan, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28 (4), pp.404-421.

Trentman, F. 2007 ‘Before "fair trade": empire, free trade, and the moral economies of food in the modern world’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25, 6

Week 8 (seminar 5): Occupation as protest Barker, A. 2012 Already Occupied: Indigenous Peoples, Settler Colonialism and the

Occupy Movements in North America, Social Movement Studies in 2012 11 (3-4), pp.327-334.

Calhoun, C. 2013 Occupy Wall Street in perspective, British Journal of Sociology, 64 (1), pp.26-38.

Week 9 (seminar 6): Conservation: from discourse to practice Cowell, B. 2002 ‘The Commons Preservation Society and the campaign for Berkhamsted

Common 1866–70’, Rural History 13, 2 Hey, D. 2011 Kinder Scout and the legend of the Mass Trespass, Agricultural History

Review, 59 (2), pp.199-216.

33

Week 10 (seminar 7): Environmental activism Doherty, B. 1999 ‘Paving the way: the rise of direct action against road-building and the

changing of British environmentalism’, Political Studies 47, 2. North, P. 2011 The politics of climate activism in the UK: a social movement analysis,

Environment and Planning A, 43 (7), pp.1581-1598.

Instructions for Handing In Coursework Essays

1. Students are encouraged to type or word process assignments. Handwritten submissions will be accepted for marking, although handwriting is discouraged, and illegible scripts may be returned to candidates with a demand that they be typed at the student's expense. 2. Assignments must be submitted to the Global Studies School Office (Arts C168). The date and time of submission will be recorded electronically so students should bring their University ID. 3. Students should submit TWO clean copies of each submission with a cover sheet that includes their candidate number, module title etc. Please do not put your name anywhere on your work. One annotated copy will be returned to the student. Group and individual feedback comments can be found on Sussex Direct. The mark at this stage is provisional and may be subject to revision. The second copy will be kept for audit purposes and external examiner scrutiny. 4. Students should familiarise themselves with the Global Studies late submission penalties as outlined on the website http://www.sussex.ac.uk/global/internal/forstudents. It should be noted that where online coursework feedback will lead to an advantage for late submitters (such as in the case of in-class tests, numerical answers etc) the retrieval date will be considerably shorter than the University set deadline in the Summer term. Your module tutor will be informing you of this date. 5. All Geography coursework is subject to a process of non-blind double marking. In addition a random sample of scripts will be scrutinised by the Geography External Examiner for monitoring purposes. In the rare case that either procedure reveals problems with the marking process the Department will take appropriate steps (such as blind double marking or re-scaling) to ensure that no candidate is disadvantaged. 6. In case of multiple assessments the Module Convenor will calculate a final mark as an average of all grades. The denominator will in each case be the number of assignments required. Students who submit fewer than the required number of assignments will see their average fall. Where candidates attain an average of 69% or above, or below 40%, all the assignments counted will be sent to the External Examiner for confirmation. 7. Markers will remain alert to the possibility of plagiarism as defined in the Handbook for Examiners, and assignments found to contain plagiarised material may be penalised. Exercises must contain a bibliography or other form of referencing if appropriate.

34

Second and Final Year Generic Assessment Criteria in Global Studies

Basis on which marks are awarded 0 - 19 A mark in this range is indicative that the work is far below the standard required at the current level of your degree course. It indicates that the work is extremely weak and seriously inadequate. This will be because either the work is far too short, is badly jumbled and incoherent in content, or fails to address the essay title or question asked. It will show very little evidence of knowledge or understanding of the relevant module material and may exhibit very weak writing and/or analytical skills. 20 - 39 A mark in this range is indicative that the work is below, but at the upper end is approaching, the standard required at the current level of your degree course. It indicates weak work of an inadequate standard. This will be because either the work is too short, is very poorly organized, or is poorly directed at the essay title or question asked. It will show very limited knowledge or understanding of the relevant module material and display weak writing and/or analytical skills. Essay work will exhibit no clear argument, may have very weak spelling and grammar, very inadequate or absent references and/or bibliography and may contain major factual errors. Quantitative work will contain significant errors and incorrect conclusions. 40 - 49 A mark in this range is indicative that the work is of an acceptable standard at the current the level of your degree course. Work of this type will show limited knowledge and understanding of relevant module material. It will show evidence of some reading and comprehension, but the essay or answer may be weakly structured, cover only a limited range of the relevant material or have a weakly developed or incomplete argument. The work will exhibit weak essay writing or analytical skills. It may be poorly-presented without properly laid out footnotes and/or a bibliography, or in the case of quantitative work, it may not be possible to follow the several steps in the logic and reasoning leading to the results obtained and the conclusions reached. 50 - 59 A mark in this range is indicative that the work is of a satisfactory to very satisfactory standard at the current level of your degree course. Work of this quality will show clear knowledge and understanding of relevant module material. It will focus on the essay title or question posed and show evidence that relevant basic works of reference have been read and understood. The work will exhibit sound essay writing and/or analytical skills. It will be reasonably well structured and coherently presented. Essay work should exhibit satisfactory use of footnotes and/or a bibliography and in more quantitative work it should be possible to follow the logical steps leading to the answer obtained and the conclusions reached. Arguments and issues should be discussed and illustrated by reference to examples, but these may not be fully documented or detailed. 60 - 69 A mark in this range is indicative of that the work is of a good to very good standard for the current level of your degree course. Work of this quality shows a good level of knowledge and understanding of relevant module material. It will show evidence of reading a wide diversity of material and of being able to use ideas gleaned from this reading to support and develop arguments. Essay work will exhibit good writing skills with well organized, accurate footnotes and/or a bibliography that follows the accepted ‘style’ of the subject. Arguments and issues will be illustrated by reference to well documented, detailed and relevant examples. There should be clear evidence of critical engagement with the objects, issues or topics being analysed. Any quantitative work will be clearly

35

presented, the results should be correct and any conclusions clearly and accurately expressed. 70 - 84 A mark in this range is indicative that the work is of an excellent standard for the current level of your degree course. The work will exhibit excellent levels of knowledge and understanding comprising all the qualities of good work stated above, with additional elements of originality and flair. The work will demonstrate a range of critical reading that goes well beyond that provided on reading lists. Answers or essays will be fluently-written and include independent arguments that demonstrate an awareness of the nuances and assumptions of the question or title. Essays will make excellent use of appropriate, fully referenced, detailed examples. 85 - 100 A mark in this range is indicative of outstanding work. Marks in this range will be awarded for work that exhibits all the attributes of excellent work but has very substantial elements of originality and flair. Marks at the upper end of the range will indicate that the work is of publishable, or near publishable academic standard.

Global Studies Generic Assessment Criteria: Learning Diaries

0-39 Marks in this range are indicative that the work is of an inadequate standard. There will be insufficient evidence of comprehension of the module topics/themes, and inadequate evidence of learning and progression. The Diary is likely to consist of poor summaries or descriptions of a limited number of topics covered. It may contain very little analysis of module material and lack any critical reflection. The Diary is likely to have some or all of the following features: far too short, complete lack of structure and coherence, substantial amount of irrelevant material, incomprehensible sections and serious flaws in understanding or interpretation. There will be no evidence of critical selection, analysis and reflection. The Diary may lack a conclusion, or the conclusion may show no ability to synthesise. References to sources may be absent, confused or wrong, and answers will reflect very weak writing skills. 40-49 Marks in this range are indicative that the work is of an adequate standard. The Diary will contain a basic introduction about the student’s approach to the module. The central sections are likely to consist of basic summaries and descriptions of some of the topics covered. The Diary will contain some sense of the student’s learning, but it may be sketchy, disorganised, short, or lacking a sense of progression. While there will be some evidence of understanding, the Diary may lack structure and commentaries may appear random, incoherent or irrelevant. The Diary will show very limited evidence of critical selection, analysis and reflection. It will have a conclusion but with little synthesis. Writing skills may be poor, but the text should make sense and should contain some structure and organisation. There may be limited acknowledgment of sources. 50-59 Marks in this range are indicative that the work is of a satisfactory standard. The Diary will contain an introduction, central sections and a conclusion that indicate some awareness of the module process and of the writer’s learning. The major topics/themes will be covered, but there may be a lack of depth in analysis and reflection. Comments on the student’s understanding of the module material will be included but these may be simply stated rather than analysed or evaluated, they may be of a general nature, or they may not

36

be consistent throughout the Diary. The content of the Diary will be relevant to the module but is not likely to have ventured beyond the module resources. The Diary will have a structure but may lack in coherence or synthesis. The standard of writing will be reasonably competent and sources will be acknowledged, but there may be some problems in spelling or grammar. 60-69 Marks in this range are indicative that the work is of a good to very good standard. The Diary will contain an introduction that is both exploratory and focused. It will show a clear and developing understanding of the concepts and issues addressed in the module, and provide both critical analysis and reflection on the topics of the module. The diary will cover the main topics/themes but may draw on supplementary resources as well. There will be clear evidence of the student’s own learning process and of active engagement with the module content. The diary will demonstrate insight, reflexivity and comprehension. The conclusions will show development of understanding and an ability to synthesise. The standard of writing should be good, and sources systematically acknowledged. 70+ Marks in this range are indicative that the work is of an excellent to outstanding standard. The Diary will introduce a clear set of expectations, preconceptions or questions at the outset and proceed with sustained critical reflection throughout. The Diary will not only demonstrate comprehensive and relevant coverage of the module material but it will also present substantial analysis, evaluation and synthesis. Diaries in this range may draw on a considerable amount of supplementary resources, take a particularly original approach to reflection, or point out exceptionally insightful or unexpected links between different elements of the module. The Diary will reflect a persistent and high level of engagement and learning, and the conclusion will demonstrate a cumulative understanding of the module material. The standard of writing and referencing should be very good, with no or few errors of spelling or grammar.

Collusion and Plagiarism

The University of Sussex uses the following definitions of plagiarism and collusion for the purposes of Academic Misconduct procedures. Both students and staff should familiarise themselves with this information, so that it is clearly understood what is and is not acceptable. Further information on the University of Sussex Academic Misconduct procedures can be found on the following website: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/academicoffice/resources/misconduct "It is an offence for any student to be guilty of, or party to, attempting to commit or committing collusion, plagiarism, or any other misconduct in an examination or in the preparation of work which is submitted for assessment. Misconduct in assessment exercises, examinations or in the presentation of marks achieved elsewhere, is conduct likely to be prejudicial to the integrity and fairness of the examination process.

(a) Collusion is the preparation or production of work for assessment jointly with another person or persons unless explicitly permitted by the examiners. An act of collusion is understood to encompass those who actively assist others as well as

37

those who derive benefit from others. Where joint preparation is permitted by the examiners but joint production is not, the submitted work must be produced solely by the candidate making the submission. Where joint production or joint preparation and production of work for assessment is specifically permitted, this must be published in the appropriate course documentation.

(b) Plagiarism is the use, without acknowledgement, of the intellectual work of other people, and the act of representing the ideas or discoveries of another as one’s own in written work submitted for assessment. To copy sentences, phrases or even striking expressions without acknowledgement of the source (either by inadequate citation or failure to indicate verbatim quotations), is plagiarism; to paraphrase without acknowledgement is likewise plagiarism. Where such copying or paraphrase has occurred the mere mention of the source in the bibliography shall not be deemed sufficient acknowledgement; each such instance must be referred specifically to its source. Verbatim quotations must be either in inverted commas, or indented, and directly acknowledged."

Writing well and avoiding academic misconduct Plagiarism, collusion, and cheating in exams are all forms of academic misconduct which the University takes very seriously. Every year, some students commit academic misconduct unintentionally because they did not know what was expected of them. The consequences for committing academic misconduct can be severe, so it is important that you familiarise yourself with what it is and how to avoid it. The University’s S3 guide to study skills gives advice on writing well, including hints and tips on how to avoid making serious mistakes. Visit http://sussex.ac.uk/s3/writingwell and make use of the resources there. You will also find helpful guides to referencing properly and improving your critical writing skills. If you are dealing with difficult circumstances, such as illness or bereavement, do not try to rush your work or hand in something which may be in breach of the rules. Instead you should seek confidential advice from the Student Life Centre. The full University rules on academic misconduct are set out in the Undergraduate Examination and Assessment Handbook; see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/academicoffice/documentsandpolicies/examinationandassessmenthandbooks

Course Evaluation Mechanisms

This module will be evaluated by means of an electronic questionnaire. The full data set can be viewed online. See http://www.sussex.ac.uk/tldu/ideas/eval/ceq/faq/students for information on how to perform a search on Sussex Direct. However, we also value informal feedback on module content and the teaching and learning experience.