From Jean: 'on digestion of afters'

Thanks, Ian and thanks, everyone. It’s been a curious project to attempt in some ways, but, for me, the result is extremely satisfying. Juggling the contradictory imperatives of genres, technologies, disciplines, personal geographies, politics and so on, this draft manages to establish coherence and yet retain its beguiling sense of drift through multiple fragments and voices.

A couple of specific comments:

I’m somewhat surprised (though not really unbelieving, to be honest) by the statement (p.1) ‘only a few notable experiments in collaborative writing’. The surprise is partly due to my own disciplinary background (honed in the eighties’ days of ‘memory work’ at the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies where collective writing as a political statement was de rigeur) and partly because of felicitous connections with geographers who do write collaboratively (for example, with cultural geographers at Royal Holloway, and with Phil Crang, in particular). Perhaps I’ve just been plain lucky? Anyway, for the blog contributors’ interest (and not necessarily to add here), may I offer my own nomination for an interdisciplinary ‘notable experiment’ that has a basis in geography, and one that does involve experimenting with form, mode of representation and differential positioning of the co-writers? Jackie Huggins (indigenous Australian historian), Rita Higgins (Jackie’s mother whose family was forcibly removed from their traditional lands) and Jane M. Jacobs (white geographer) together visit Rita’s birthplace, Kooramindanjie, and each relates a story of her relationship to this profoundly haunted place. The stories are presented in fragments, distinguished by subheadings, different fonts and positioning, almost rubbing alongside each other (and alongside boxed quotations from ‘official’ documents). As Jackie and Jane say, ‘These multiple voices are not intended to reconcile differences, to settle things down; they are intended to activate difference, to ensure the dialogue continues’ (Huggins et al 1997). It seems to me our blogging and its resulting article is written in a similar sprit.

On the other hand, I don’t want to fetishise the technology itself. Obviously, the blog, together with other software, has been extremely useful for communicating across disciplines, cultures and continents and for identifying and following conceptual drifts. Nevertheless, it is only a tool. As in the Kooramindanjie example, written in the pre-blog-Facebook-twitter-etc age, it is the idea of collective writing that is important, and a ‘collective’ that doesn’t assume the ironing out of all differences, the adoption of a uniform ‘voice’ or a uniform direction of argument. Here too, perhaps it’s the continuance of ‘dialogue’ – with all its shifts, continuities, ambivalences, outright differences – that really counts?

Now to do an intellectual/stylistic about-turn … sort of. Like Heike, I love fragments – that sense of postmodern slipperiness about where arguments will take you; that sense you’re relieved of the obligation to make everything fit neatly. On the other hand, I also want a comforting sense of order – a pattern in the fragments; discernible narrative threads, however messy, tangled or loose these might seem. I think Ian has picked up on these in creating the article (in his unraveling/rejoining/repositioning chunks of conversation). After all, an article is different from a blog or potential readers simply need the appropriate link. Personally, I would like to see this shaping and polishing taken a step further with fragments of subheadings indicating where a new thread of argument gathers force (not too aggressively, mind you, just slipped in (writing together in public … borders, fragments, loose ends … things that travel …veils and fetishes … whose organic food, whose food? … victims and violent consumption … reflexively eating the ‘other’ … ‘other’ animals …‘dirty’ politics and ‘visceral imaginaries’ … writing across borders or some such). On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to be too prescriptive, and perhaps the only thing needed, after all, is my trusty highlighter?

From Julie

Hi Ian (et al.)

I apologize for the delay in responding. I'm finally giving full-on attention to a book I began 3 years ago and I'm reluctant to break momentum. I admit that I only skimmed the draft, although I like what I saw. Excellent coding and formatting. I concur with the need for a more direct and brief introduction and I'm thus going to throw my weight behind (all fat metaphors these days) the move to jettison the lengthy quotes about blogging and place them in another paper. I bet that I'm not the only person who gave much more thought to the substantive posts and would rather see them kept intact. And the work is intended, in fact, to be a review of food scholarship first and foremost.

With that in mind, it occurred to me while trying to fall asleep last night that an easy solution to the introduction is to refer back to the original invitation and paraphrase it. As Ian first characterized it he invited the particular cast of characters to participate in this third review because they a) had not really been included in the other two though have been writing on these issues; b) had been cited briefly and Ian seemed to think a response was in order; or c) had something to say about the topic even though maybe weren't "food scholars" per se. What emerged thereafter was an organic conversation, albeit sometimes a disjointed one, among those who agreed to participate. What follows in the rest of the article represents the emergent conversations.

So, I'm thinking something like this in the intro: one paragraph on food studies as an emergent field, constantly being defined and redefined through the people that participate in it and what they bring to the field from other fields (which is all true!). This paper, both reflects and extends that impulse; a second paragraph that recapitulates the original invitation and what its purpose was - who was invited and why, pretty much cribbed from the original; And then a third paragraph on the process: how it led to such an organic conversation, as it were, which did in fact bring in perspectives that the other two reviews hadn't touched as much (both the politics/positionality and the visceral) - and then some summary statement about blogging.

The conclusion can then say something about how the process of this article, which both widened and relaxed the conversation about food might be used as a model in food movements themselves. (Ok, that's where I'd go with it, so maybe that's too much me). but something that refers to how a different sort of process leads to different sorts of places intellectually and communicatively.

Hope this is helpful.

Julie

From Allison and Jessica

Our main comments are first and foremost that we like what has been done. One comment that has been written on the blog recently is to have a more defined intro and conclusion. Neither of us is sure that this is necessary. A traditional intro is perhaps not appropriate here. Maybe it is important (and enough) to say in the beginning that the blogging style (and authors' experiences) mirror the complexity, diversity, and fluidity of recent work in food. In other words, many of us are conceiving of food in these relational and negotiated ways, which makes this blogging forum not only an appropriate style for communicating about the Geographies of Food, but a way to represent food more 'faithfully' (as in Latham 2003). We found the conclusion (as in the end of the document where one might expect a conclusion) to be equally satisfying in its non-conformity and complexity (though maybe a little short; one more post with a 'wrapping up' type theme might help). Another comment from other bloggers was to take out some of the discussion on blogging in the paper to leave more room for food. This could be a good idea, yet we also liked the blending of blog discussions and food discussions in the beginning (and throughout) the paper. Instead, perhaps some sort of subheadings, and/or strategically placed and bolded words (and arrows?) might be helpful to guide our readers, or at least to signal that there are various key themes circulating throughout e.g. RELATING, RACE, OTHER, HUNGER, POOR, MIXING, VISCERAL. These are just examples - maybe we could use some of the ‘codes’ that Ian came up with when analyzing the document? (A short comment about our own continued combined participation: we started out commenting jointly because we often collaborate on our food research – in the field and in writing – and so writing as a team here has offered us a space to recognize what we like about our joint scripts and how we organize our efforts.)

Food AND blogging

I actually really like the way this paper turned out - I think it's great that it is about food AND blogging (and I like the visual aspects, the juxtaposing of contributions). In my opinion, it is the collaborative writing process that makes it so special - so I would be hesitant to remove the intro posts. Maybe some of the people who have longer posts could edit/shorten their contributions, if limited space is a concern? And thank you so much again Ian for all the work you have put into this.
Heike

edits

hey ian,
could you please add the following sentence to the end of my entry:

I also think it is important that we are able to find ways to critically map these aesthetics taking place as both part of AND separate from the social and the political (Kingsbury, 2005; forthcoming).

Kingsbury, P. (2005) Jamaican tourism and the politics of enjoyment. Geoforum 36 (1), 113-132

Kingsbury, P. (forthcoming) Unearthing Nietzsche’s Bomb: Explosiveness, Nuance, Aesthetics. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies

thanks,
paul

changing the introduction

Hi everyone

Thanks for the posts so far. I was going to hold fire here until more authors had added their feedback.

I did have an idea based on Rachel's post, though: we/I could shift most of the opening paras about the way that this was put together to the page about this paper on my online, 'et al' 'Writing collaboration' 'paper': see here. That's set up to change as things happen, so any reader interested in the 'how' of the Afters paper could go there (a simple piece of referencing). 'Writing collaboration' could also be the place to which some of the quotes about the process /experience of writing the paper could be moved, into a second differently collaborative 'publication'.

If we agree to do this, it would be nice for 2 or 3 people to volunteer to write a new 'food geographies' introduction either as named people, or more generally on behalf of the group.

Hope this sounds like a good idea...

Thanks

Ian

PS I sent an email earlier in the year about contributing to the 'Writing collaboration' paper too, and Alison and Mimi are already commentators there... I'm planning on doing a updated page on the Afters experiment when it finally gets the OK from Progress. I'm hoping others may be able to contribute to the bit of this online paper about the paper paper based on the blog about food geographies... but you may have had enough of this by then...

thoughts on draft 1

hi everyone,

I too like the way this paper has come out both in terms of its form and its loose ends. I agree with Paul's suggestions for changes (points 2, 3 and 4).

The parts more specific to blogging and the creation of this paper could be summarized (not left as intact quotes), they could comprise another publication or they could be left somewhere online and you could reference that location.

As for cutting words, perhaps those with multiple posts or very long paragraphs could condense.

I agree that it would help to have a short introduction and conclusion that is more about the aspect of food.

I tried to rewrite my comments into the paragraph (below) that I hope speaks to the issue of corporeality and retains most of what was originally in the draft.

thanks Ian et al.!
Rachel

***
I think that desire to "decolonize the self" may be a starting point for some (many?) critical people engaging with questions of race in the US. It's...encouraged by anti-racist activism and one could argue that it's a liberal, individualistic response. But one could also say that efforts at reflexivity are a pathway toward, for instance, where Cook [2008] suggests Heldke [2003] ended up. For all the criticisms we might level at people trying to change their consumption practices individually or collectively, it's important to acknowledge the fraught, fuzzy and fragile nature of these positions and the embodied connections made through food. I've been trying to do that while admiring the work of those who have been very critical of the liberal, wealthy whiteness of alternative food and of various politics of consumption. I tend to agree with these critiques but find there's more to say. That was my starting point, at least, when I suggested that the viscous spatiality of alt food's whiteness is less cohesive, more desirous of non-racist connection, more interesting in its gendered female form or less relevant than we think (see Jean's comment). And in highlighting the importance of thinking about the corporeality of race and vegetables [2008], I was proposing (with others) that opening up the concept of race (beyond static formulations like 'eating the other' and beyond its mediation solely by the social) should be useful to anti-racism and our own analyses. Seen this way, race emerges materially through corporeal relationships to food--what people gravitate toward, what they touch and taste, what they grow. If race is an event, an open-ended becoming made by ongoing connection rather than only exclusion and erasure (Saldanha 2006), it suggests the need to look at what possible worlds open up through the connections that both divide groups and draw them together.
Slocum, R. 2008: Thinking race through feminist corporeal theory: divisions and intimacies in the Minneapolis Farmers' Market. Social and Cultural Geography 9(8):849-869
Saldanha, A. 2006. Re-ontologizing race: the machinic geography of phenotype. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24:9-24

From Heather

[Heather could only post this as a comment, which you may have missed, so I'm copying it here... Ian.]

Hey all,
I really liked the format of the paper draft. Mostly because it does show lines of thought, not all of which relate one to another. I think it is important to acknowledge that all of our thinking and our research has loose ends, and usually ends in more questions! The format itself is a nod to this fact. I did make one more comment after Damien´s comment near the end, trying to relate a concern raised at the beginning of the document with the one that I and Damien were commenting on.
Heather

reflections

Hi everyone!
Thanks Ian for continuing to push us and drive the project. I gave the 'afters' paper a good read and have several comments:

1. In terms of how "these excerpts worked together", I loved the (Walter Benjaminian) montage style and effects. I like the various surprising dissonances and overlaps with the contents. I also like the appearance of the different shaped blocks of text

2. One criticism I have is that it seems a lot of the v. interesting Blog comments on "corporeality" (Rachel), "viscerality" (Charlie), as well as "Bodies, Visceral Difference, Visceral Imaginaries" (Allison and Jessica) have been dropped and eclipsed by the political (e.g. Otherings, positionalities etc.) dimensions of food. Can something be done about that?

3. Might it be a good idea (following Kersty's question: 'was this paper about blogging or about food'?) to reduce the Blogging self-reflexivity material on pages 2 and 3? At times, I felt it was indeed more about blogging than food.

4. I'd also like to see more words (difficult I know given the limit) devoted in the introduction to prepare the reader for the following material. I also think the paper could be greatly enhanced with a fairly traditional conclusion - nothing too long - that sums up what the paper did and future research directions?

5. A few typos:
P. 1 “allowed us to quickly write 43,000 about” Change to "43,000 words"
P. 9 Bell hooks should read "bell hooks"?

Paul

Kersty's comments

Thanks Ian for your work on deftly pulling this together.
Finally grabbed some time in the middle of teaching to read this. Found it a more challenging read that I anticipated...but as Shoko rightly says on page 2, I will 'force myself' to say something here and see what happens!! As one might expect, the blog format threw up all sorts of questions about expectations of a paper as being a (somewhat) singular narrative with a definite (if not happy) ending. The hope of a'concluding/summing up' remarks section was with me throughout, and I finished reading with the question in my mind 'was this paper about blogging or about food'? Of course we know it contains both in different ways, and I am not saying this as any direct criticism of anyone...I just wanted to get the conversation going about other people's reactions upon reading this. I don't mind being challenged as reader to draw my own connections, and of course the word limit disciplinarian is always with us...how did others feel about it, react?
kersty

Brief comments so far

Hi Everyone

I've had a few brief comments on the draft by email, and thought I'd anonymously quote some of what's been said so far.

'I’m still ‘digesting’ the writings you sent, but immediately want to take the “Food Afters” content into InDesign and go wild! I like the experimental format.'

'It comes off as as a really awesome discussion, which I would like to add more to'

'It's quite successful how you've done this but I wished there was something more at the beginning and end'.

'It told me I don't have access. ?'

'It came out very interesting and I am very glad that I am part of the project.'

'On a first read through this looks (surprisingly!) good. I'll think about any edits but for now have not made any.'

'this looks fabulous. thanks so much. will peruse more and be back to you'.

'Who is saying that we need to cut the document by 1,500 words? That would/may be a real shame because I think it reads really well.'

[Answer: these food reviews have ended up being a bit longer than normal, with 'Following' at 5,000 words + refs and 'Mixing' at 6,700 + refs. If there's a consensus that we should ask if an 8,000 word paper would be OK under our circumstances, then I'm happy to send an email and report back].

Also, the paragraph starting "I think you are correct to identify.." has now been correctly attributed to David.

It seems that there's been some quick skim reading, and promises to have a closer look as soon as possible. Kersty emailed today with a more detailed response and this is posted above. Other detailed responses would be good too, and it would be useful to see some comments along the lines of 'I liked the way that these excerpts worked together because...', 'I couldn't see why these worked together because...', 'Might it be a good idea to include in the introduction something like...' and 'How about a general conclusion saying something like...' We can discuss the word count later... Let's get the paper so that we're all more or less happy with it first.

I'll set the countdown 'til the end of the month.

Thanks and apologies as usual!


Ian