This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This open panel explores small and modest acts of resistance, ‘acts of citizenship’ (Isin and Nielson 2008) and enactments of ‘citizenship from below’ (Sheller 2014). These are socio-political methods, practices, performances and identities, made, claimed and negotiated on many scales, including sensory and embodied daily practice. Although small and mundane, such critical and creative acts, enactments and activist actions can make alternative presents and futures, unmaking and remaking good relations. We are seeking contributions that address ‘the deeper constitutive struggles over embodied freedoms and embodied constraints within unequal interpersonal and international relations’ that are ‘etched by everyday actions, scrubbed by washerwomen’s hands, dug into small plots of land, sewn into new fashions, danced to sacred rhythms honoring ancestral spirits’ (Sheller 2014, 23). How have collectives (of individuals, things, tech, plants and animals) attempted to change the world/s for the better? What kinds of alternate or unofficial ‘desire lines’ are created ‘where people deviate from the paths they are supposed to follow’ (Ahmed 2006, 570)? How do they ‘provide alternatives’ and ‘possible sources for the development of new kinds of practices, narratives about belonging to and participating in society’ (Holston 1995, 48). How do they invite us to consider how things ‘might have been otherwise’ (Bijker and Law 1992, 3)? We welcome individual and collective, inventive and speculative practice research and experimental multi-format presentations on extra-ordinary acts of mundane resistance now, historically or in experiential futures (not limited to spoken word) using audio-visual, objects, bodies, material and performance.
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
This panel will bring together scholars researching trauma and stress from biosocial perspectives. Trauma-informed approaches are often positioned as a gold standard of care across biomedical, therapeutic, carceral and policy domains. Historical trauma frameworks have long been central to collective identity and politics among Indigenous, Black and other racially marginalised communities, and have gained momentum through recent anti-racist and anti-colonial movements like Black Lives Matter and Idle No More. Research fields like social epidemiology, critical public health and biological anthropology have explored how trauma and stress “get inside” the body to shape health disparities (e.g. “minority stress”; “weathering” [Geronimus 1992]). Recently, research on the developmental origins of health and disease and epigenetics is redefining trauma as an exposure with a heritable trace (Dubois&Guaspare 2020), raising new questions about ancestral memory and reproductive politics.
We invite scholars from various disciplines to explore how trauma and stress are enacted biosocially through human experience, activist tactics, government policy and scientific knowledge. How are trauma and stress defined, studied and reformulated across these arenas? What are the social and political stakes of trauma-informed practices? What forms of temporality, identity and justice do they produce?
Possible contributions may consider:
–	Trauma and stress in postgenomic science
–	Intergenerational trauma
–	Trauma-informed care in health, education or criminal justice
–	Intersectional and embodied accounts of stress and trauma (e.g. gender and medical racism)
–	Theorising trauma and stress (e.g. necropolitics, slow violence, new materialisms, decolonial research, geontopower)
–	Trauma and biomedicalisation
–	Trauma, legality and justice
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Over the past decade, phrases like “data is the new oil”, “numbers speak for themselves”, and “data-driven approaches” have featured prominently in industry and government discourse alike. Personalized recommendations and targeted ads are products of data-driven ‘innovation’. Governments are turning towards data-driven policy making, targeted service delivery, and ubiquitous surveillance (Engin & Treleaven, 2019). International development agencies have opted consumer-data as a proxy for the more time-consuming and expensive surveys to make populations visible to them (Taylor & Broeders, 2015).  This pervasive datafication calls for critical reflections on how data-driven approaches shape what we know, how we know and also what we do not get to know. 
While quantifying people’s lives is not new, with technological capabilities for more complex interlinking, and much faster analysis of large datasets, reliance on data-driven understanding of the world has intensified. Against this backdrop of increasing datafication and claims of data objectivity and infallibility, this panel aims to examine the implications of using data as a means of knowing – about customers, patients, audiences, citizens and communities.
We invite papers that critically reflect on the shifts in the constitution of knowledge and processes of knowing by engaging with the scope, limits and nature of datafied knowledge in domains such as governance, public health, policing, news, activism, research, finance, entertainment, development projects and others. The broader objective of the panel is to better understand the political and social ramifications of data-driven approaches to knowledge construction on our perception and interpretation of the world around us.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Questioning the brain drain circulation and the scientific diasporas approaches (Gaillard & Gaillard, 1998; Meyer, 2011; Pellegrino, 2001, 2013), we criticize the supposedly causal relation between the development (Vinck, 2014), the scientific internationalization policies (Rivero y Trejo, 2020), and the knowledge production.
That brain circulation is configured in an unequal way, especially when we look at the circulation between central and peripherals countries. On one hand, a subordinated integration (Kreimer, 2010) could determine the peripheral countries’ scientific agendas, due to the empirical applications of the central countries laboratories’ investigation lines, where former scientific were instructed.
On the other hand, the institutional and epistemological frames that found scientific policies and research representations don’t picture enough the deep transformations of the scientific practices, the intellectual work and the knowledge production of a world inhabited by a profound conscience of uncertainty and vulnerability. Both characteristics shape the contemporary knowledge field, because of the mobility and labor instability that it assumes and supposes (Broitman, 2020; Le Marec, 2020).
As these formative experiences could configure different uses in knowledge production, works concerning 1) strategies oriented to labor reinsertion, 2) individual preoccupations, 3) political claims, 4) internationalization and others topics related are welcome.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Co-Chairs: Shannon N Conley and Brenda Trinidad
We are interested in applications of speculative fictions exploring ideas of stewardship that translate or extend practices as applied terrestrially or to an increased human influence in the cosmos. We invite papers that reflect on the role and utility that speculative fiction can play in fostering pedagogical and/or research applications in regards to stewardship and responsible innovation. We seek examples of applications of speculative fiction in various contexts (e.g. in the classroom, as public engagement, research, etc.). By stewardship, we refer to both the environmental stewardship of the earth, as well as within an extraterrestrial contexts (eg. habitation on the ISS, the moon, Mars, etc). We seek papers that speak to the relationship between nature and stewardship (i.e. in terms of reflecting on whether outer space is part of nature). 
This panel centers on reflections regarding how speculative fictions and the lens of environmental stewardship can contribute to an eudaimonic, flourishing society, through a lens of an ethics of care or other ethical frameworks. We welcome papers that respond to how the lens of speculative fiction speaks to themes of environmental stewardship and responsible innovation that open up dialogue around the question “what is nature” and “who is responsible”.  While we use space as an example, we invite papers on a wide variety of topics, ranging from AI to biotechnology and beyond.
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Most contemporary policy fields are deeply intertwined with tools of ordering that also act as tools of valuation. Such procedures often involve the translation of qualities into quantities, concomitantly with the ascription of economic value. Think only of the quantification of polluting emissions and their pricing on carbon markets, the infection numbers that detect the distribution of Covid-19 across and within countries and the calculation of the cost of life years saved, measures of scientific output through the number of publications, patents or start-ups created, cost-benefit analyses that balance risks and benefits. Such numbering techniques do not only quantify, they also do valuations: they take part in producing the worth of the objects they detect and measure. We invite papers that address such tools of valuation, their emergence and ways of operating. What are the relations between the tools involved and the entities they work upon? How to interrogate the complex relations between the ‘quantifiable’ and the ‘valuable’, the promises such tools of valuation live by and the good and the, sometimes, troubling relations they produce? What are the relations between the material and the semiotic elements such tools are very often composed by and the complex interplay between the tools of valuation and the larger valuation machineries of which they are very often part? Which modes of governing are these tools part of, and how do they relate to their specific politics?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
Anything that has both direction and magnitude can be described as a vector. Take a billiard ball. Standing still, it is just a ball. But set in motion, it has new capacities and potentials: it can hit another ball on the table; it can rearrange the board. Or take a mosquito. Alone, it is an insect—ostensibly an isolated being. But once it has been infected with a pathogen, it can spread disease, cause death, change worlds. Toxics, dust storms, super-spreaders: all of these are vectors, too. What can we learn by taking up vectors as objects of analysis? That is, what can we learn by looking at our research objects in their vector forms? 
We invite contributions from scholars working on a range of objects (medical, environmental, mathematical, aesthetic, political, or otherwise) who are interested in exploring those objects in motion. How do they become relational pathways—entities that spread, link up, cross scales, and expand from points of origin? Can vectors be both problems and blueprints for solving them? Can they be both objects and methods? Does rethinking the object-as-vector invite us to make connections that are otherwise obscure? And what about the researcher-as-vector? Covid-19 throws old ethical quandaries about fieldwork into harrowing relief, pressing questions like: what do “good relations” look like when there is not even a pretense of separation or neutrality? When the scholar-body poses an explicit risk, and is itself at risk, how should that change the ways we go about our work?
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
These are unprecedented times, or so we are told through COVID-19 communications articulated by global health institutions and national governments. Such exceptionalism foregrounds the significance of the current crisis – its bodily and economic impacts, the global and local inequities that have materialized and the myriad meanings it has created. Yet this exceptionalism, in practices and discourses, also gives rise to hierarchies of knowledge production. Ontologies and epistemologies advanced by global and national health responses construe the virus as a discrete, measurable entity. Such dominant framing might connect COVID-19 with other epidemics, as for instance HIV, but disarticulates the viral from local marginalized knowledges and modes of worlding.  Consequently, borders are erected – geopolitically, between bodies and knowledge generating disciplines, temporalities, and across socio-economic differences – in the name of exceptionalism. 
What queer, Indigenous, and decolonial knowledges, histories, embodied effects and meanings can be highlighted if we understand that COVID-19 and other epidemics are exceptional through the particular relations they put in place or displace? This panel doesn’t dismiss COVID-19’s local and global significance, but instead invites contributors to inhabit virality’s exceptionalism in relational terms: querying science’s entanglements with politics; reconceiving intimacies and viral transmission; positing other temporalities and post-COVID futurity narratives.  
We invite papers that consider:
–	coronaviruses’ entanglements with pre-existing states of perpetual crisis, e.g. exacerbations in stigma, poverty, violence
–	practices of survivance and imaginings of futurities as lived by ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities
–	other means of embodying post-colonial/settler colonial realities in the viral present
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Taking lessons from plants and animals, drones, machines, algorithms, networks and platforms, STS scholarship on vision has decentered human vision, establishing it as a political technology. These accounts, while addressing the materiality and technology of vision, tend to separate human from non-human. Instead of taking this dichotomy for granted, this panel suggests that scholars can attend to the complexities of vision as distributed across devices, networks, data infrastructures and the human eye. We propose to expand human vision by ethnographically attending to its relationality and entanglements.
To do so, we call for generous methods (M’charek forthcoming), i.e. methods which, instead of taming their research objects, allow for carefully attending to the intricacies of vision.  Multimodal research designs allow for such multiplications, cross-modality, and invisualities (Mackenzie and Munster 2019). Yet by theorizing through making (e.g. through audio-visual, coding or other practices) how can they help us situate technologies of vision in their complex and messy networks? This panel invites experimental and multimodal ethnographic accounts of seeing that go beyond the somatic body and even the realm of the visual. We contend that by empirically situating technologies of vision in concrete practices we can effectively explore the politics they articulate. By employing a cross-modal (Ballestero 2019) approach to vision we encourage papers that challenge the separation of human from the non-human as well as to move beyond the panoptic visualizations that dominate the scholarship on securitization and military technologies.
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
Recent scholarship on mining and drilling (Appel et al. 2015, Klinger 2017), the anthropocene (Yusoff 2018), urban infrastructure (Anand 2017), maritime logistics (Starosielski 2015, Campling & Colás 2021), the transit of toxins (Murphy 2013), and the disposal of bodies (Krupar 2018) theorizes the politics of sub-surface worlds. Bringing these depths into view has centered new spaces, scales, materials, and relations. Yet the concept of depth itself, and the responsibilities that attend its investigation, have not been sufficiently examined. 
Depth is more than a simple spatial signifier or linguistic trope. Thinking with and beyond verticality (Graham and Hewitt 2012), volumetric space (Weizman 2007, Elden 2013, Billé 2018), and metaphor (McKittrick 2018, Shalem 2017), we want to suggest that the deeps constitute a semiotic landscape that is resolutely material but always exceeds conventional materialist readings. Deep spaces matter: they are simultaneously material and meaningful. We seek papers that engage critically and creatively with the mattering of chthonic landscapes, defined broadly.
Encoded in the concept of depth are all kinds of latent associations and meanings. As such, we may speak of deep time, deep sleep, deep ecology, deep learning, the deep state, skin deep, diving deep, depth of character, depth of perception, depth of field, depth of meaning, etc. How, we ask, are these (and many other) conceptualizations of depth tied to the deep places of the earth? And if, as Spivak teaches us, thought must be “written on the planet as planet” (2012: 349), how does thinking operate beneath the planetary surface?
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.
This panel seeks to explore how the language of civil rights and freedoms can be translated in the language and materiality of infrastructures and what are the complexities that arise from this process. As Keller Easterling (2014) writes “changes to the globalizing world are being written, not in the language of law and diplomacy, but rather in the language of infrastructure”. From Internet routing protocols to network architecture solutions, infrastructures “set the invisible rules that govern the spaces of our everyday lives” (Ibid). 
The panel aims to unveil the different types of organizations and configurations in which the ’embedding’ of freedoms into infrastructure takes shape, from the arenas of more ‘traditional’ Internet governance led by specialized institutions and often promoted through international technical standards, to grassroots, local and activist-led initiatives such as alternative routing protocols, decentralized and local networks or experimental messaging tools. We also seek to unveil the variety of motivations subtending these phenomena, ranging from specific and institutionalized political agendas to technical innovation and experimentation, often linked to particular imaginaries and visions of society.
We accept innovative and interdisciplinary research pieces (both work-in-progress and advanced papers) that experiment with methodologies, but also welcome practitioners, activists and journalists who propose a critical insiders’ take on the “infrastructure-wired rights”. This panel seeks to build upon a previous conversation taking place at Privacy Camp 2021.