Richard J White

Without questioning the importance of anarchist socio-spatial experiments of the past, the fact is that the last two decades have seen a kind of re-birth of libertarian practices and principles (horizontality, self-management, decentralisation, and so on), that are not necessarily connected to the anarchist tradition in a strict sense. Many contemporary social movements and forms of protest (and certainly most of those that are particularly creative and innovative) present a clear left-libertarian ‘soul’.  Examples of such practices of freedom abound, especially in Europe and the Americas, though there are some highly interesting examples in other continents as well, such as South Africa’s Abahlali base Mjondolo (literally ‘Movement of the Shack Dwellers’), particularly strong in Durban and Cape Town. Nowadays, emancipatory praxis is becoming gradually synonymous with direct action, horizontal decision-making and autonomy, and not with political parties and a ‘taking-state-power’ mentality. More than ever before, Marxist - and especially Leninist - methods and strategies have been placed under considerable suspicion. These developments create a range of important questions to consider, including: to what extent spatial practices have been consistently compatible with left-libertarian principles? To what extent can we say that anarchism and anarchists (or rather neo-anarchists, as well as libertarian autonomists) animate these movements, waves of protest, and forms of resistance? And what activities have been developed by these activists (in the realms of self-defence, production, culture etc.)?

Space is never a neutral ‘stage’ on which social actors play their roles, sometimes cooperating with each other, sometimes struggling against each other. Space is a product of interrelations, and is always under construction.  Its co-constitutive role in the development of social relations is multiple and complex: a reference for identity-building and re-building; a material condition for existence and survival; a symbol and instrument of power. However, as much as space has been made instrumental for the purposes of heteronomy (from class exploitation to gender oppression to racial segregation), space (spatial re-organisation, spatial practices and spatial resources) is also a basic condition for human emancipation, i.e. for autonomy and freedom. Recognising the way space has been used for resistance, especially in those more specifically left-libertarian contexts (from the early anarchist organising efforts in the 19th century, to the Paris Commune, to the early kibbutzim, to the makhnovitchina in Ukraine, to the socio-spatial revolution during the Spanish Civil War, to the contemporary re-birth of left-libertarian and sometimes specifically anarchist praxis among social movements such as Mexican Zapatistas) is important. Here, a greater understanding of space can teach a great deal about both limits and potentialities, particularly in relation to the possibilities and tasks of re-purposing and re-structuring the built environment, changing images of place, and overcoming old and new boundaries of all sorts.

Pedagogy is central to geographical knowledge, where Kropotkin’s ‘What Geography Ought to Be’ has significantly shaped the face of contemporary geographical thought. At the same time, anarchists have developed very different political imaginations than Marxists, where the importance of pedagogy has always been of primary importance. Pedagogy accordingly represents one of the key sites of contact where anarchist geographies can continue to inform and revitalize contemporary geographical thought. Anarchists have long been committed to bottom-up, ‘organic’ transformations of societies, subjectivities, and modes of organizing. For anarchists the importance of direct action and prefigurative politics have always taken precedence over concerns about the state, a focus that stems back to Max Stirner’s notion of insurrection in 'The Ego and Its Own' as walking one’s own way, ‘rising up’ above government, religion, and other hierarchies, not necessarily to overthrow them, but to simply disregard these structures by taking control of one’s own individual life and creating alternatives on the ground. Thus, the relevance of pedagogy to anarchist praxis (understood in a broad sense, as in Paulo Freire’s 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed') stems from its ability to guide a new way of thinking about the world and as a space that is able to foster transgression.

This paper aims to make a timely and original contribution to the long-standing debates regarding the interrelationships(s) between democracy, anarchism and the state in two key ways. The first is by exploring more fully the work of Errico Malatesta, particularly focused on critical discussions around 'the nation', 'federation' and 'democracy'. Cognisant of these Malatestian insights, the second part of the paper reflects a resurgent interest in anarchist geographies more generally, and foregrounds a contextual focus of the divisive politics associated with Britain's attempts to leave the European Union ('Brexit'). Here the paper argues for the need to recognise that the crisis of representative democracy is always social and spatial in nature. This is illustrated primarily by highlighting the importance the state places by repeatedly appealing to popular "nationalist" sentiments. In doing so, the state draws on a spatial mechanism of control, one which relies heavily on imagined and real geographical senses of sovereignty, territory and boundaries. Thinking though the implications that a more explicitly spatial reading of democracy, anarchism and the state presents, the paper concludes by considering how post-statist democratic futures might be better envisaged and enacted more fully.

Recently, it has become increasingly recognised that self-servicing is a growing rather than declining phenomenon. To explain this, a range of competing theories have emerged which
variously portray those engaged in self-servicing either as rational economic actors, dupes, seekers of self-identity, or simply doing so out of necessity or choice. This paper evaluates
critically the validity of these rival explanations. To do this, the extent of, and reasons for, self-servicing in the domestic realm is empirically evaluated through an internet survey of 5,500 people living in the city of Sheffield in England. This resulted in 418 valid responses (a 7.6 per cent response rate). The finding is that three-quarters of all domestic tasks surveyed were last conducted on a self-servicing basis. Turning to why self-servicing is used, the finding is that all the previous theorisations are valid to differing degrees, and through a process of induction, a theoretically-integrative typology is offered which combines the existing theorisations by differentiating between various ‘willing’ (rational economic actors, choice, identity seeking) and ‘reluctant’ (economic and market necessity, Dupes, participants in the self-service economy. The outcome is a call for further research on the wider applicability of using this typology to explain self-servicing across other retail and distribution activities (e.g., food retailing, organising travel and holidays) is now required.

This paper is comprised of a series of short, conversational or polemical interventions reflecting on the political ‘moment’ that has emerged in the wake of the rise of right-populist politics, particularly in the Global North. We position the UK’s ‘Brexit’ vote and the election of Donald Trump as US President as emblematic of this shift, which has a longer genesis and a wider scale than these events alone. In particular, we draw on anarchist principles and approaches to consider opportunities for re-energising and re-orienting our academic and activist priorities in the wake of these turbulent times. Following a short introductory section, in which we collectively discuss key questions, challenges and tensions, each contributor individually draws from their own research or perspective to explore the possibilities of a politics beyond electoralism.

It is widely believed that there is no alternative to capitalism. Over the last two decades however, the critical geography literature on diverse economies has demonstrated the existence of alternatives to capitalism by revealing the persistence of non-capitalist forms of work and organisation. The aim in this paper is to question the validity and usefulness of continuing to frame these non-capitalist practices as 'alternatives'. Positioning non-capitalist economic practices as 'alternatives' fails to capture not only the ubiquity of such practices in everyday life, but also how those engaging in them do not see them as 'alternatives' in the sense of a second choice, or less desirable option, to capitalist practices. The intention in doing so is to reveal that it is not non-capitalist practices that are 'alternative' but rather, capitalist practices themselves, thus opening up the future to the possibility of a non-capitalist world more fully than has so far been the case.

This paper is comprised of a series of short, conversational or polemical interventions reflecting on the political 'moment' that has emerged in the wake of the rise of right-populist politics, particularly in the Global North. We position the UK's 'Brexit' vote and the election of Donald Trump as US President as emblematic of this shift, which has a longer genesis and a wider scale than these events alone. In particular, we draw on anarchist principles and approaches to consider opportunities for re-energising and reorienting our academic and activist priorities in the wake of these turbulent times. Following a short introductory section, in which we collectively discuss key questions, challenges and tensions, each contributor individually draws from their own research or perspective to explore the possibilities of a politics beyond electoralism.

Adopting an ‘anarchist squint’ (Scott, 2014: xii) this paper aims to expose, subvert, and undermine the dominant prima facie assumption that we live under a ‘neoliberal capitalist’ order. It achieves this primarily by drawing attention to the pervasive nature of alternative economic modes of human organisation within western society. Celebrating an ontology of economic difference, the paper argues that many of the existing ‘alternative’ modes of human organisation enacted through everyday material, social and emotional coping strategies are demonstrably and recognisably anarchistic. Far from being a residual and marginal realm, these anarchist forms of organisation – underpinned by mutual aid, reciprocity, co-operation, collaboration and inclusion – are found to be deeply woven into the fabric of everyday ‘capitalist’ life. Exploring the key implications for the organisation of everyday work, particularly at the household and community level, an economic future is envisaged in which anarchist modes of organisation flourish. The paper concludes by discussing why anarchist forms of organising and organisation should be harnessed, and how this might occur.

This document is part of the Working Futures 2004-2014 series of detailed projections of employment, by sector and
region. It was commissioned jointly by the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The results are intended to provide a sound statistical foundation for the deliberations of all those with an interest in the supply of and demand for skills, including individuals, employers,education and training providers as well as the various agencies and departments of government. The latter include the Treasury, the Department for Education
and Skills (DfES), the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and Local Learning and Skills Councils (LLSCs), as well as the report’s main sponsors the SSDA and LSC.

Anarchism in its philosophy and practice rejects any form of domination or exploitation – that is, any system of archy. In contrast to other 'radical approaches', which artificially uncouple and/ or privilege particular forms of oppression and exploitation (e.g. class or gender), anarchist praxis embraces a radically intersectional approach toward social and environmental justice. Therefore it should be reasonable to assume that an intersectional anarchist praxis would actively recognise and challenge two deeply inter-locking forms of oppression, namely patriarchy (the institutionalised domination of men over women) and anthroparchy (the human exploitation of other species). However, and despite the emergence of anarcha-feminism and veganarchism, these violent systems of archy continue to be either overlooked, or have their validity contested, by mainstream anarchists.
The chapter reflects on the emancipatory grounds that anarchism purports to stands on - for non-violence, freedom and autonomy for all, and critically addresses two problematic questions. First, how can anarchists claim to fight against (1) patriarchal and paternalistic forms of social domination while actively supporting forms of anthroparchy (e.g. the consumption of non-human animal corpses, dairy and eggs)? and; (2) sexist and speciesist forms of social domination while acting in ways that upholds statist and capitalist forms of exploitation and domination? In conclusion we ask for a greater convergence between (eco)feminist, vegan, and anarchist struggles in the fight for social justice, freedom and liberation, in the belief that this will prove integral to better envisaging and enacting a contemporary anarchist political ecology.

While anarchist geographies have a long tradition, albeit scattered and temporally diffuse, there has been a limited engagement within the notion that pedagogical concerns have a tremendous latent energy to spark the flames of a more emancipatory politics. Although there are some recent notable exceptions, where geographers have offered tremendously important interventions that help us think through the anarchist and autonomous spaces that can be procured in our educational practices, the connection to pedagogy within anarchist geographies has thus far been only partial at best. This incompleteness is surprising for two key reasons. The first is that anarchism more broadly takes pedagogy as a primary site of resistance and transgression, as it allows for and actively fosters the possibility of building a new world ‘in the shell of the old’. The second reason that the limited engagement of anarchist geographies with pedagogy is surprising is because education is absolutely central to the production of geographical knowledge, and particularly in the production of critical geographies. In this introductory chapter we set forth an argument that brings pedagogy to the center of our collective writing practice in an attempt to incubate, instill, and inspire a renewed desire for resistance against the dominating structures that condition our lives.

Abstract

Across many Minority World countries *veganism has risen in mainstream popularity in ways that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. At the same time academic interest in the potentially radical possibilities that are rooted in veganism and vegan praxis continue to gain both in momentum and visibility. Critical approaches across a number of social-science disciplines, for example, have created a dynamic critical animal studies literature, one which has increasingly exposed the profound anthropocentric and speciesist limits of what constitutes “critical thinking”, and indeed critical scholarship. Found in the rich and fertile soils cultivated by critical animal geographies in particular (Collard and Gillespie, 2018), the seeds of veganism that had been carefully scattered by a handful of scholars are now beginning to bear fruit.  Indeed, if the number of key publications (Hodges et al, 2022; Sexton, et. al 2022) are anything to go by, history may well record 2022 as the year that Vegan Geographies well and truly arrived in the discipline.

In this context, this call for papers comes at a particularly exciting yet precarious moment. Exciting because we stand at a time when new and significant inter-species imaginaries, encounters, and expressions of inter-species social and spatial justice activism have the potential to be realised.  Precarious because it is impossible to underestimate the challenges that need to be successfully overcome if vegan geographies are to fulfil their radical potential(s) both within the discipline, and the world at large.

The goal of the panel ‘Environmental and Ecological Justice: Anarchist Contributions and Perspectives’ is to provide a space-time in which geographers (as well as those non-geographers interested in deepening the discussion of the spatial aspects of the problem) can meet in order to examine and debate the contributions that a specifically anarchist (or, more broadly speaking, left-libertarian) perspective can offer to illuminate the various aspects of the subject in a distinct and potent way.

The goal of this panel is to provide a space-time in which geographers as well as non-geographers interested in spatial issues can meet in order
to examine and debate the contributions that a specifically anarchist perspective can offer to illuminate the various aspects of the subject in a distinct and potent way.

CALL FOR PAPERS Vegan Geographies and The End of Anthroparchy.
We seek to underscore what geographers can contribute to our understanding of critical veganism and vegan praxis. Presentations in non-traditional and participatory formats are welcomed. Please send abstracts of no more than 250 words to y.narayanan@deakin.edu.au , springer@uvic.ca , ophelie.veron@uclouvain.be and richard.white@shu.ac.uk by 25 October 2017.

Association of American Geographers Conference April 10-14, 2018

2nd CALL FOR PAPERS: DEADLINE MONDAY 23RD OCTOBER.

Geographies of Anarchist Praxes

Organisers
Federico Ferretti    University College Dublin, Ireland.
Farhang Rouhani    University of Mary Washington, USA.
Simon Springer University of Victoria, Canada.
Ophélie Véron Université Catholique de Louvain
Richard J. White Sheffield Hallam University, UK.

A misanthrope might compare the vices of our European society to a hidden evil that gnaws at the individual from within, whereas the vices of American society appear outwardly in all of their hideous brutality. The most violent hatred separates factions and races: the slavery advocate abhors the abolitionist, the white loathes the Negro, the native detests the foreigner, the wealthy planter disdains the small landowner, and rivalry of interests creates an insurmountable barrier of mistrust even between related families.          
Elisee Reclus, (1885) A Voyage to New Orleans.

An anarchist praxis within geography continues to inspire and invite new imaginaries and praxis to flourish within the discipline.  In recent years, anarchist geographers have revitalised approaches toward radical learning spaces (Rouhani, 2017, Springer et al, 2016); historical geographies (Ferretti 2015; Springer 2016), neoliberalism (Springer 2011), post-statist geographies (Barrera and Ince, 2016), practices of freedom (White et al, 2016); postcoloniality/decoloniality (Barker and Pickerill 2012), theories of resistance (Souza et.al 2016); urbanism (Souza 2014), nonhuman animal oppression (White, 2017) and a reassessment of our discipline’s radical potential (Springer 2014, 2016), among others. While wishing to see these anarchist geographies unfold still further, at this point in time - and with the AAG conference being held in New Orleans - we feel it is particularly relevant and important to invite papers that engage directly with the following three areas:

1. Anarchist Geographies and Anti-racism/ intersectionality.
The topics of anti-racist and anti-slavery struggles are part of the anarchist tradition since Reclus's sojourn in Louisiana from 1853 to 1855 and his "anarchist abolitionism", a fight that the anarchist geographer pursued all his life long. Today, the issues on anti-racism, intersectionality and the claims of all marginalised and “racialized” communities, often linked to anti-fascism and anti-sexism stances, are more and more urgent all over the world, as recently shown by the case of Afro-American communities. Any paper discussing past, present and future anarchist engagements on these topics is welcome. 

2. Anarchist Geographies and Colonialism, postcolonialism, and decolonization
Some lasting misunderstandings concern the relations between anarchism and decolonialism. While focusing on the intersection of all forms of oppression (state, capital, churches, armies, authorities …) anarchism rarely flagged anti-colonialism or postcolonialism as its main feature. Yet, this did not impede that anarchist were historically among the most radical anti-colonialist from the time of early anarchist geographers, nor that anarchist thinking is devoid of elements which can nourish to-day debates on “de-colonising geography”. For instance, the anarchist refusal of a political avant-garde anticipated recent political and epistemological claims from decolonial scholars, put in practice by movements of indigenous resistance such as the Zapatistas. Contributions on anarchism and anti-colonialism, de-colonisation, decoloniality and indigeneity are especially welcome.

3. Anarchist Geographies and Critical Pedagogies, Learning, and Teaching in the University
Anarchist commitment to pedagogies at all levels, from primary school to university, has been traditionally deployed in both the experimentation of freed schools and universities, self-organised outside any intervention of the state or of main educational institutions, and the work within existing institutions which can often provide a tribune to divulgate critical and anarchist contents. In these situations, one might find spaces for both experimentation and struggle against political and intellectual domination. Theoretical reflexions and cases of concrete experiences are both welcome in the context of a discussion on challenges to state and mainstream pedagogies and their spatialities.

Other areas may include, but are not limited to:
Anarcho-feminism Non-western anarchisms Anarchism and activism
The anarchist commons Anarchism and animal liberation. Authority, power, and the state

References
Barker, A. J., & Pickerill, J. (2012). Radicalizing relationships to and through shared geographies: Why anarchists need to understand indigenous connections to land and place. Antipode, 44(5), 1705-1725.
Barrera, G. and Ince, A. (2016). Post-statist epistemology and the future of geographical knowledge production. In Springer, S., Douza, M. L de, and White, R. J. (Eds.) The Radicalization of Pedagogy: Anarchism, Geography and the Spirit of Revolt. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Ferretti, F. (2015). Anarchism, geohistory, and the Annales: rethinking Elisée Reclus’s influence on Lucien Febvre. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33, 347-365.
Rouhani, F. (2017). Creating Transformative Anarchist-Geographic Learning Spaces. In Robert Haworth and John Elmore (ed).Out of the Ruins: The Emergence of New Radical Informal Learning Spaces, Oakland: PM Press.
Souza, M. L. de (2014). Towards a libertarian turn? Notes on the past and future of radical urban research and praxis. City, 18(2), 104-118.
Springer, S. (2011). Public space as emancipation: meditations on anarchism, radical democracy, neoliberalism and violence. Antipode, 43(2), 525-562.
Springer, S. (2013). Anarchism and Geography: a brief genealogy of Anarchist Geographies. Geography Compass, 7(1), 46-60.
Springer, S. (2014). Why a radical geography must be anarchist. Dialogues in Human Geography, 4(3), 249-270.
Springer, S. (2016). The Anarchist Roots of Geography: Towards Spatial Emancipation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Springer, S, White R.J, Souza, M.L de. (2016) (eds.) The Radicalization of Pedagogy: Anarchism, Geography and the Spirit of Revolt, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.
White R.J, Springer, S., Souza, ML de. 2016 (eds.) The Practice of Freedom: Anarchism, Geography and the Spirit of Revolt, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.
White, R.J (2017) Rising to the challenge of capitalism and the commodification of animals: post-capitalism, anarchist economies and vegan praxis. In David Nibert (eds) Animal Oppression and Capitalism. Praeger, Conneticut.

We also welcome presentations in non-traditional and participatory formats. If you would like to participate in other ways (e.g. discussant) then please feel free to contact us as well. Please send abstracts of no more than 250 words to Richard.White@shu.ac.uk; ophelie.ei.veron@gmail.com simonspringer@gmail.com; frouhani@umw.edu; and federico.ferretti@ucd.ie by October 23th 2017.
Please note: once you have submitted an abstract to us and it is accepted, you will also need to register AND submit an abstract on the AAG website on/ before October 25th.
More details about submitting abstracts can be found here: http://annualmeeting.aag.org/AAGAnnualMeeting/AAGAnnualMeeting/CallForSubmissions.aspx

Veganism as an ethics and a practice has a recorded history dating back to Antiquity. Yet, it is only recently that researchers have begun the process of formalising the study of veganism. Scholars who examine this theory and action are usually situated in sociology, history, philosophy, cultural studies or critical animal studies. The centrality and contested nature of place in the actions and discourse of animal rights activists however suggest an inherently spatial praxis. Slaughterhouses are deliberately closed and placed out of the sight; our familiar urban environment is filled with references to eating meat and exploiting animals, although normalised and rendered invisible. On the other hand, activists take to the street to defend animal rights and invite individuals to change their perception on everyday places and practices of animal violence. Animal liberation and veganism therefore embody an inherently spatial praxis – the desire to live without places of violence (White, 2015). As underlined by Harper (2010:5-6), ‘veganism is not just about the abstinence of animal consumption; it is about the ongoing struggle to produce socio-spatial epistemologies of consumption that lead to cultural and spatial change’. While an interest in domination over non-human animals has gained momentum within critical geography circles in the last two decades (Wolch and Emel, 1995; Philo and Wilbert, 2000; Emel et al., 2002, Gillespie and Collards, 2015; White, 2015), the scarcity of available literature highlights the need for geographers to further reflect on vegan activism and practice. As scholars-activists identifying with veganism, we seek to underscore what geographers can contribute to our understanding of critical veganism and vegan praxis.

CALL FOR PAPERS
Towards Vegan Geographies: Ethics Beyond Violence

We seek to underscore what geographers can contribute to our understanding of critical veganism and vegan praxis.

Presentations in non-traditional and participatory formats are welcomed.
Please send abstracts of no more than 250 words to y.narayanan@deakin.edu.au , springer@uvic.ca , ophelie.ei.veron@gmail.com  and richard.white@shu.ac.uk  by 21 October 2016.

Please note: Once you have submitted an abstract to us and it is accepted, you will also need to register AND submit an abstract on the AAG website.

The re-emergence of anarchist perspectives has been one of the most significant new developments in critical geography over the last few years. Two journal special issues in 2012 (Clough and Blumberg 2012; Springer et al. 2012) galvanised a diverse set of anarchist- inspired geographers and set the scene for a range of scholarship to emerge, including studies of non-capitalist economies (Ince 2015; White 2013), historical geographies (Ferretti 2013; 2014), political praxis (Curran and Gibson 2013), neoliberalism (Springer 2013), the state (Ince and Barrera forthcoming), governance (Gorostiza et al. 2013; Wilkin and Boudeau 2015), postcoloniality/decoloniality (Barker 2013), urbanism (Lopes de Sousa 2014), and a reassessment of our discipline’s radical potential (Springer 2016), among others.
New ideas and concepts have emerged through this renewed interest in anarchism, which promises to transform the intellectual landscape of geography as we know it. This growing maturity and diversity of anarchist thought, however, has been characterized by a heavy focus on theory. As scholars identifying with anarchist traditions, we feel it is both timely and vitally important to explore critically and in greater depth what these theoretical and conceptual innovations mean for academic praxis – in the empirical, as well as pedagogical and methodological, dimensions of geographical scholarship.

Brexit – the process of the UK leaving the European Union – has been a major political issue over the last two years. In the context of rising nationalisms across global North and South, alongside emergent authoritarianisms and ‘hipster Stalinism’ within the broader radical left, anarchist perspectives are needed now more than ever, as the only perspective that has been resolute in its libertarian and egalitarian principles. Yet, certainly in the UK, the anarchist movement is at its weakest point in a generation, partly having been undermined and outwitted by state-centric populist electoralism (most notably, the Labour Party under Corbyn), and partly failing to coherently address the contemporary (geo)political context.
As geographers, there will be spatially uneven effects of Brexit, within the UK and across Europe and the world, as trade relations, treaties and state regulations become disentangled and realigned. In the scenario of a disorderly ‘no deal’ withdrawal, the functions of society that ensure day-to-day survival (e.g. social reproduction, work, healthcare) may struggle or collapse. In the context of emergency, it is well documented that communal relations flourish. Thus, we face opportunities for both research agendas for tracing the dynamics of Brexit itself, and for understanding the underlying fabric of society through its pressure points, fissures and, in Colin Ward’s words, proto-anarchist “seeds beneath the snow”.
Thus, Brexit may be an opportunity to rethink anarchism and anarchist geography – not only for those on the British Isles but also for those across the world who now face opponents who are emboldened by the reactionary discourses of Brexit (e.g. in Italy, France, Hungary). Nevertheless, given the many regressive and violent characteristics of the EU, leaving its control may also reveal opportunities.

The Anarchist Roots of Geography: Toward Spatial Emancipation advances several arguments. On the one hand, it wishes to recover and applaud the legacies of two anarchists who were also geographers—Kropotkin (1842– 1921) and Reclus (1830–1905)—and celebrate others. Then there is an argument for anarchism to be central to a reworked radical geography today and that Marxism has crowded out anarchist voices. There are also arguments about what anarchism might mean and how this involves space. Geography is represented as anarchic in itself as a discipline and in opening Springer seeks “to remind readers that geography has never had, and nor should it desire, a single disciplinary plan or pivot” and that periodic attempts to impose one have failed. ... Springer’s book might therefore represent a coming of age for anarchist geography, making it harder for future texts on geographic thought to be judged adequate unless more care is taken with anarchist currents.

It is widely believed that there is no alternative to capitalism. Over the last two decades however, the critical geography literature on diverse economies has demonstrated the existence of alternatives to capitalism by revealing the persistence of non-capitalist forms of work and organisation. The aim in this paper is to question the validity and usefulness of continuing to frame these non-capitalist practices as 'alternatives'. Positioning non-capitalist economic practices as 'alternatives' fails to capture not only the ubiquity of such practices in everyday life, but also how those engaging in them do not see them as 'alternatives' in the sense of a second choice, or less desirable option, to capitalist practices. The intention in doing so is to reveal that it is not non-capitalist practices that are 'alternative' but rather, capitalist practices themselves, thus opening up the future to the possibility of a non-capitalist world more fully than has so far been the case.

Everything that standard management and business textbooks talk about – production, buying, selling, workplace, motivation, structuring your business – takes place strictly in the context of the market. Businesses are established, people are hired, services and goods are sold and then the money is counted. This is a very simplified sequence of activities, but that is largely what would be covered in most management courses. However, even in the most money-driven settings, there are many activities that take place and are not reducible to money. Think of when people work overtime just because of a sense of duty or care, give advice without asking anything in return or break the rules in order to help a customer. What is common to all these examples is that they might generate value, but they are not motivated by the generation of value (see Chapter 10). In fact, caring for others, voluntary work and gift giving happen all around us and are at the centre of everyday life. It should not surprise us then that they happen in for-profit organizations
too, as ordinary people ignore money and act, either individually or in groups, in ways that support each other. In this chapter, we will discuss how a lot of everyday economic life is practically anarchist, or rather, that we very often live like anarchists, even if we are encouraged not to.

It is widely believed that there is no alternative to capitalism. Over the last two decades however, the critical geography literature on diverse economies has demonstrated the existence of alternatives to capitalism by revealing the persistence of non-capitalist forms of work and organisation. The aim in this paper is to question the validity and usefulness of continuing to frame these non-capitalist practices as 'alternatives'. Positioning non-capitalist economic practices as 'alternatives' fails to capture not only the ubiquity of such practices in everyday life, but also how those engaging in them do not see them as 'alternatives' in the sense of a second choice, or less desirable option, to capitalist practices. The intention in doing so is to reveal that it is not non-capitalist practices that are 'alternative' but rather, capitalist practices themselves, thus opening up the future to the possibility of a non-capitalist world more fully than has so far been the case.

Increasingly high-profile research is being undertaken into the socio-environmental challenges associated with the over-production and consumption of food from animals. Transforming food systems to mitigate climate change and hidden hunger, ensure food security and health all point to reducing animal-based foods as a key lever. Moving beyond animal-based food systems is a societal grand challenge requiring coordinated international research by the social sciences and humanities. A ‘selective openness’ to this range of disciplines has been observed within multi-discipline research programmes designed to address societal grand challenges including those concerned with the sustainability of food systems, a situation that can inhibit the impact of social sciences and humanities. Further, existing research on animal-based foods within these disciplines is largely dispersed and focused on particular parts of the food system. This paper discusses the results of a research prioritisation process, inspired by the ‘Sutherland Method’, and carried out to enhance capacity, mutual understanding and impact amongst European social sciences and humanities researchers. The iterative prioritisation process produced 15 research questions from an initial list of 100 which we classify under the following five themes: 1) Debating and visioning food from animals; 2) Transforming agricultural spaces; 3) Framing animals as food; 4) Eating practices and identities; 5) Governing transitions beyond animal-based food systems. The themes are important in providing a means of making connections between research questions inviting and steering  research on key challenges in moving beyond animal-based food systems. These five themes propose loci for future transdisciplinary research programmes,  joining researchers from the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, and stakeholders from beyond academia to develop cooperative research and implementation initiatives. The experiences gained from the prioritisation process draw attention to the value of spending time to discuss and collaboratively steer research inquiry to  respond to emergent and controversial matters of concern. A key tension concerned fundamental, ethical questions around the continuation or complete cessation of the use of animals for food. The positioning of research towards these questions affects not only the framing of the research area but also the partners with whom the research can be carried out and to whom it may be of benefit or harm.