company:harvard university press

  • Internet, cette révolution qui n’en était pas une : les désillusions de l’activisme numérique
    http://www.internetactu.net/2019/05/07/internet-cette-revolution-qui-nen-etait-pas-une-les-desillusions-de-la

    Le livre de la sociologue Jen Schradie (@schradie), The revolution that wasn’t : How digital activism favors conservatives (La révolution qui n’était pas : ou comment l’activisme numérique favorise les réactionnaires, Harvard University Press, 2019, non traduit) sonne comme un nouveau revers pour tout ceux qui pensaient que le numérique allait changer (...)

    #Articles #Recherches #économie_de_l'attention #eDémocratie #Participation #politique #réseaux_sociaux

    • [...] dans les groupes des classes moyennes et supérieures, les outils sont plus accessibles, tout comme les compétences, les ressources et la confiance en soi. Les individus qui composent ces mouvements sont plus éduqués, ont un peu plus de compétences et de moyens, et donc accèdent plus facilement aux outils numériques… mais surtout, ils n’ont pas connu la peur de la répression.

      Voilà le résultat le plus important du travail de Jen Schradie : les « activistes » les plus susceptibles de subir la répression ont tendance à limiter leur « surface d’exposition ». Ce phénomène n’a pas grand chose à voir avec les conseils prodigués dans les brochures militantes pour assurer un certain niveau de confidentialité de ses échanges numériques. Il s’agit de la méfiance spontanée de celles et ceux qui savent plus ou moins consciemment que lorsqu’on est du mauvais coté du manche, aucun moyen technique ne permet de rétablir l’équilibre. Le seul levier qui ne risque pas de vous revenir dans la gueule, c’est celui des rapports humains différents de ceux que les dominants ont tendance à penser comme universels.

    • Pour Jen Schradie, les coûts de la mobilisation n’ont pas baissé avec internet, comme on le lit souvent. En ligne, les mises à jour de sites et les mises à jour sur les réseaux sociaux sont bien plus fréquentes selon le niveau social des acteurs, mais également selon la structuration même des collectifs auxquels ils appartiennent. En étudiant les sites web et les réseaux sociaux, Schradie calcule la participation en ligne sous la forme d’un score d’activisme numérique, qui se révèle bien différent selon qu’on se situe à gauche ou à droite du jeu politique. Elle souligne que les groupes les plus actifs en ligne sont aussi les plus structurés et les plus hiérarchiques.

      Un constat bien loin des promesses d’horizontalité et de décentralisation pionnières du numérique.

      […]

      Il questionne les outils que nous utilisons… et montrent que leurs biais ne reposent peut-être pas seulement sur le miroir qu’ils nous tendent, mais peut-être plus profondément sur la structure même qu’ils organisent. À la lire, on pourrait se demander, assez légitimement, si le fait que les conservateurs réussissent mieux à utiliser ces outils n’est pas aussi lié à l’idéologie qui façonne ces outils. Le fait qu’ils favorisent la propagation de messages simples, leurs logiques agrégatives plutôt que disséminatrices, interrogent fondamentalement les biais cachés dans les fonctionnalités mêmes de nos outils.

      #internet #activisme #militantisme #politique #technologie #critique_techno

  • The Song Sisters Facts
    http://biography.yourdictionary.com/the-song-sisters

    By marrying men of political distinction and adhering to their own political pursuits, the Song sisters— who included Ailing (1890-1973), Meiling (born 1897), and Qingling (1892?-1981) Song— participated in Chinese political activities and were destined to play key roles in Chinese modern history.

    Charlie Song and Guizhen Ni had three daughters and three sons, all of whom received American educations at their father’s encouragement. Though dissimilar political beliefs led the Song sisters down different paths, each exerted influence both on Chinese and international politics; indeed, Meiling’s influence in America was particularly great.

    In childhood, Ailing was known as a tomboy, smart and ebullient; Qingling was thought a pretty girl, quiet and pensive; and Meiling was considered a plump child, charming and headstrong. For their early education, they all went to McTyeire, the most important foreign-style school for Chinese girls in Shanghai. In 1904, Charlie Song asked his friend William Burke, an American Methodist missionary in China, to take 14-year-old Ailing to Wesleyan College, Georgia, for her college education. Thus, Ailing embarked on an American liner with the Burke family in Shanghai, but when they reached Japan, Mrs. Burke was so ill that the family was forced to remain in Japan. Alone, Ailing sailed on for America. She reached San Francisco, to find that Chinese were restricted from coming to America and was prevented from entering the United States despite a genuine Portuguese passport. She was transferred from ship to ship for three weeks until an American missionary helped solve the problem. Finally, Ailing arrived at Georgia’s Wesleyan College and was well treated. But she never forgot her experience in San Francisco. Later, in 1906, she visited the White House with her uncle, who was a Chinese imperial education commissioner, and complained to President Theodore Roosevelt of her bitter reception in San Francisco: “America is a beautiful country,” she said, “but why do you call it a free country?” Roosevelt was reportedly so surprised by her straightforwardness that he could do little more than mutter an apology and turn away.

    In 1907, Qingling and Meiling followed Ailing to America. Arriving with their commissioner uncle, they had no problem entering the United States. They first stayed at Miss Clara Potwin’s private school for language improvement and then joined Ailing at Wesleyan. Meiling was only ten years old and stayed as a special student.
    The First and Second Revolutiona

    Ailing received her degree in 1909 and returned to Shanghai, where she took part in charity activities with her mother. With her father’s influence, she soon became secretary to Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the Chinese revolutionary leader whose principles of nationalism, democracy and popular livelihood greatly appealed to many Chinese. In October of 1911, soldiers mutinied in Wuhan, setting off the Chinese Revolution. Puyi, the last emperor of China, was overthrown and the Republic of China was established with Sun Yat-sen as the provisional president. Charlie Soong informed his daughters in America of the great news and sent them a republican flag. As recalled by her roommates, Qingling climbed up on a chair, ripped down the old imperial dragon flag, and put up the five-colored republican flag, shouting “Down with the dragon! Up with the flag of the Republic!” She wrote in an article for the Wesleyan student magazine:

    One of the greatest events of the twentieth century, the greatest even since Waterloo, in the opinion of many well-known educators and politicians, is the Chinese Revolution. It is a most glorious achievement. It means the emancipation of four hundred million souls from the thralldom of an absolute monarchy, which has been in existence for over four thousand years, and under whose rule “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” have been denied.

    However, the “glorious achievement” was not easily won. When Qingling finished her education in America and went back in 1913, she found China in a “Second Revolution.” Yuan Shikai, who acted as president of the new Republic, proclaimed himself emperor and began slaughtering republicans. The whole Song family fled to Japan with Sun Yat-sen as political fugitives. During their sojourn in Japan, Ailing met a young man named Xiangxi Kong (H.H. Kung) from one of the richest families in China. Kong had just finished his education in America at Oberlin and Yale and was working with the Chinese YMCA in Tokyo. Ailing soon married Kong, leaving her job as secretary to Qingling, who firmly believed in Sun Yat-sen’s revolution. Qingling fell in love with Sun Yat-sen and informed her parents of her desire to marry him. Her parents, however, objected, for Sun Yat-sen was a married man and much older than Qingling. Charlie Soong took his family back to Shanghai and confined Qingling to her room upstairs. But Qingling escaped to Japan and married Sun Yat-sen after he divorced his first wife.

    Meanwhile, Meiling had transferred from Wesleyan to Massachusetts’s Wellesley College to be near her brother T.V. Song, who was studying at Harvard and could take care of her. When she heard of her parent’s reaction to Qingling’s choice of marriage, Meiling feared that she might have to accept an arranged marriage when she returned to China; thus, she hurriedly announced her engagement to a young Chinese student at Harvard. When her anxiety turned out to be unnecessary, she renounced the engagement. Meiling finished her education at Wellesley and returned to China in 1917 to become a Shanghai socialite and work for both the National Film Censorship Board and the YMCA in Shanghai.

    Ailing proved more interested in business than politics. She and her husband lived in Shanghai and rapidly expanded their business in various large Chinese cities including Hongkong. A shrewd businesswoman, who usually stayed away from publicity, Ailing was often said to be the mastermind of the Song family.

    Qingling continued working as Sun Yat-sen’s secretary and accompanied him on all public appearances. Though shy by nature, she was known for her strong character. After the death of Yuan Shikai, China was enveloped in the struggle of rival warlords. Qingling joined her husband in the campaigns against the warlords and encouraged women to participate in the Chinese revolution by organizing women’s training schools and associations. Unfortunately, Sun Yat-sen died in 1925 and his party, Guomindang (the Nationalist party), soon split. In the following years of struggles between different factions, Chiang Kai-shek, who attained the control of Guomindang with his military power, persecuted Guomindang leftists and Chinese Communists. Qingling was sympathetic with Guomindang leftists, whom she regarded as faithful to her husband’s principles and continued her revolutionary activities. In denouncing Chiang’s dictatorship and betrayal of Sun Yat-sen’s principles, Qingling went to Moscow in 1927, and then to Berlin, for a four year self-exile. Upon her return to China, she continued criticizing Chiang publicly.

    In 1927, Chiang Kai-shek married Meiling, thereby greatly enhancing his political life because of the Song family’s wealth and connections in China and America. Whereas Qingling never approved of the marriage (believing that Chiang had not married her little sister out of love), Ailing was supportive of Chiang’s marriage to Meiling. Seeing in Chiang the future strongman of China, Ailing saw in their marriage the mutual benefits both to the Song family and to Chiang. Meiling, an energetic and charming young lady, wanted to make a contribution to China. By marrying Chiang she became the powerful woman behind the country’s strongman. Just as Qingling followed Sun Yat-sen, Meiling followed Chiang Kai-shek by plunging herself into all her husband’s public activities, and working as his interpreter and public-relation officer at home and abroad. She helped Chiang launch the New Life Movement to improve the manners and ethics of the Chinese people, and she took up public positions as the general secretary of the Chinese Red Cross and the secretary-general of the commission of aeronautical affairs, which was in charge of the building of the Chinese air force. Under her influence, Chiang was even baptized.

    Meiling’s marriage to Chiang meant that the Song family was deeply involved in China’s business and financial affairs. Both Ailing’s husband Kong and her brother T.V. Song alternately served as Chiang’s finance minister and, at times, premier. In 1932, Meiling accompanied her husband on an official trip to America and Europe. When she arrived in Italy, she was given a royal reception even though she held no public titles.
    The Xi-an Incident

    In 1936, two Guomindang generals held Chiang Kaishek hostage in Xi-an (the Xi-an Incident) in an attempt to coerce him into fighting against the Japanese invaders, rather than continuing the civil war with Chinese Communists. When the pro-Japan clique in Chiang’s government planned to bomb Xi’an and kill Chiang in order to set up their own government, the incident immediately threw China into political crisis. In a demonstration of courage and political sophistication, Meiling persuaded the generals in Nanjing to delay their attack on Xi-an, to which she personally flew for peace negotiations. Her efforts not only helped gain the release of her husband Chiang, but also proved instrumental in a settlement involving the formation of a United Front of all Chinese factions to fight against the Japanese invaders. The peaceful solution of the Xi-an Incident was hailed as a great victory. Henry Luce, then the most powerful publisher in America and a friend to Meiling and Chiang, decided to put the couple on the cover of Time in 1938 as “Man and Wife of the Year.” In a confidential memo, Luce wrote "The most difficult problem in Sino-American publicity concerns the Soong family. They are … the head and front of a pro-American policy.

    "The United Front was thereafter formed and for a time it united the three Song sisters. Discarding their political differences, they worked together for Chinese liberation from Japan. The sisters made radio broadcasts to America to appeal for justice and support for China’s anti-Japanese War. Qingling also headed the China Defense League, which raised funds and solicited support all over the world. Ailing was nominated chairperson of the Association of Friends for Wounded Soldiers.
    Meiling’s Appeal to United States for Support

    The year 1942 saw Meiling’s return to America for medical treatment. During her stay, she was invited to the White House as a guest of President Franklin Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor. While there, she was asked by the President how she and her husband would deal with a wartime strike of coal miners, and she was said to have replied by drawing her hand silently across her throat. In February of 1943, she was invited to address the American Congress; she spoke of brave Chinese resistance against Japan and appealed to America for further support:

    When Japan thrust total war on China in 1937, military experts of every nation did not give China a ghost of a chance. But, when Japan failed to bring China cringing to her knees as she vaunted, the world took solace ….Letusnot forget that during the first four and a half years of total aggression China had borne Japan’s sadistic fury unaided and alone.

    Her speech was repeatedly interrupted by applause. In March, her picture again appeared on the cover of Timeas an international celebrity. She began a six-week itinerary from New York to Chicago and Los Angeles, giving speeches and attending banquets. The successful trip was arranged by Henry Luce as part of his fund-raising for United China Relief. Meiling’s charm extended past Washington to the American people, and the news media popularized her in the United States and made her known throughout the world. Indeed, her success in America had a far-reaching effect on American attitudes and policies toward China.

    Soon afterward, Meiling accompanied Chiang to Cairo and attended the Cairo Conference, where territorial issues in Asia after the defeat of Japan were discussed. The Cairo Summit marked both the apex of Meiling’s political career and the beginning of the fall of Chiang’s regime. Corruption in his government ran so rampant that—despite a total sum of $3.5 billion American Lend-Lease supplies—Chiang’s own soldiers starved to death on the streets of his wartime capital Chongqing (Chungking). While China languished in poverty, the Songs kept millions of dollars in their own American accounts. In addition to the corruption, Chiang’s government lost the trust and support of the people. After the victory over Japan, Chiang began a civil war with Chinese Communists, but was defeated in battle after battle. Meiling made a last attempt to save her husband’s regime by flying to Washington in 1948 for more material support for Chiang in the civil war. Truman’s polite indifference, however, deeply disappointed her. Following this rebuff, she stayed with Ailing in New York City until after Chiang retreated to Taiwan with his Nationalist armies.

    Ailing moved most of her wealth to America and left China with her husband in 1947. She stayed in New York and never returned to China. She and her family worked for Chiang’s regime by supporting the China Lobby and other public-relations activities in the United States. Whenever Meiling returned to America, she stayed with Ailing and her family. Ailing died in 1973 in New York City.
    Differing Beliefs and Efforts for a Better China

    Meanwhile, Qingling had remained in China, leading the China Welfare League to establish new hospitals and provide relief for wartime orphans and famine refugees. When Chinese Communists established a united government in Beijing (Peking) in 1949, Qingling was invited as a non-Communist to join the new government and was elected vice-chairperson of the People’s Republic of China. In 1951, she was awarded the Stalin International Peace Prize. While she was active in the international peace movement and Chinese state affairs in the 1950s, she never neglected her work with China Welfare and her lifelong devotion to assisting women and children. Qingling was one of the most respected women in China, who inspired many of her contemporaries as well as younger generations. She was made honorary president of the People’s Republic of China in 1981 before she died. According to her wishes, she was buried beside her parents in Shanghai.

    Because of their differing political beliefs, the three Song sisters took different roads in their efforts to work for China. Qingling joined the Communist government because she believed it worked for the well-being of the ordinary Chinese. Meiling believed in restoring her husband’s government in the mainland and used her personal connections in the United States to pressure the American government in favor of her husband’s regime in Taiwan. Typical of such penetration in American politics was the China Lobby, which had a powerful sway on American policies toward Chiang’s regime in Taiwan and the Chinese Communist government in Beijing. Members of the China Lobby included senators, generals, business tycoons, and former missionaries. In 1954, Meiling traveled again to Washington in an attempt to prevent the United Nations from accepting the People’s Republic of China. After Chiang’s death and his son’s succession, Meiling lived in America for over ten years. The last remaining of three powerfully influential sisters, she now resides in Long Island, New York.
    Further Reading on The Song Sisters

    Eunson, Roby. The Soong Sisters. Franklin Watts, 1975.

    Fairbank, John. China: A New History. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992.

    Hahn, Emily. The Soong Sisters. Greenwood Press, 1970.

    Li Da. Song Meiling and Taiwan. Hongkong: Wide Angle Press, 1988.

    Liu Jia-quan. Biography of Song Meiling. China Cultural Association Press, 1988.

    Seagrave, Sterling. The Soong Dynasty. Harper and Row, 1985.

    Sheridan, James E. China in Disintegration. The Free Press, 1975.

    #Chine #USA #histoire

  • Brooke Harrington’s Capital Without Borders: An Excerpt - The Atlantic
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/wealth-managers/499064
    La sociologie des riches vu à travers les yeux d’un gestionnaire de patrimoine.

    elite clients may ask wealth management professionals to undergo a contemporary version of the trials of Hercules. Another English practitioner who is nearing the end of a forty-year career in Hong Kong had a particularly impressive story of an impossible task set him by a client bent on testing his trustworthiness:

    I was phoned up from Osaka once, by a client who said, “I’m sitting across from Owagi-san, who speaks no English, but we are bowing to each other. He has just said to me through a translator that he needs a thousand sides of smoked salmon by Tuesday, and I’m relying on you to get them.” I said, “I’m your wealth manager, not your fishmonger.” And the client said, “Well, today you’re a fishmonger.” So I had to ring up a friend who knew the guy from Unilever who runs the smoked salmon plant in Scotland. And the plant manager made it happen. So I found out later that my client was testing me by setting me an impossible task—he told me that he was trying to see if I was really up to the kind of job he wanted me to do.

    The story is reminiscent in some ways of the tales of knightly quests, complete with seemingly insurmountable obstacles and abject humiliations (“today you’re a fishmonger”)—with a shipment of smoked salmon in place of the Holy Grail. The question behind the impossible task remains consistent: Are you truly devoted?

    Clients may also have a pragmatic reason for posing these tests: They allow the client to discover whether the wealth manager possesses the kind of social networks and influence necessary to provide extraordinary personal service. In this case, being “up to the kind of job” the client wanted depended not just on personal resolve but also on knowing the right people, in this case a friend with connections at Unilever. This is consistent with previous research showing that elite professionals serve their clients in part by acting as commercial “matchmakers,” facilitating opportunities that are not available publicly. For example, a study of 19th-century British lawyers showed how their familiarity with clients’ business dealings allowed them to create whole new industries, such as the country’s railroad system; the professionals established a kind of private market, accessible only to the upper crust of British society. Access to such opportunities hinged entirely on trust between clients and professionals, and the related perception of exclusivity. As the study concluded, “To avail oneself of opportunities, one has to be ‘one of us.’”

    Capital Without Borders: Wealth Managers and the One Percent
    By Brooke Harrington
    Harvard University Press, 400pp, £22.95
    ISBN 9780674743809
    Published 29 September 2016

    Brooke Harrington - Capital without Borders: Wealth Managers and the One Percent - ValueWalk
    http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/09/brooke-harrington-capital-without-borders-wealth-managers-one-percent

    Capital without Borders: Wealth Managers and the One Percent (Harvard University Press, 2016) is an innovative approach to addressing a problem that is even more pressing than income inequality—wealth inequality. Recognizing that the wealthy are “notoriously difficult to study,” Harrington, a sociologist, decided to focus instead on wealth managers. In some ways, however, they are even less accessible. As professionals, they are constrained by privacy considerations. Moreover, as a group they have come under attack for being “agents of money laundering and tax evasion” and are thus suspicious of outsiders. To overcome this barrier to access, Harrington trained for two years to gain certification by STEP (Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners) as a wealth manager herself. Between 2008 and 2015 she conducted 65 interviews with wealth managers in 18 countries.

  • Food and biopolitics : some literature

    Bobrow-Strain, Aaron (2013) White Bread: A Social History of the Store-Bought Loaf

    Bobrow-Strain, Aaron White bread bio-politics: purity, health, and the triumph of industrial baking Cultural Geographies January 2008 vol. 15 no. 1 19-40

    Carney, Megan A. 2014. The biopolitics of ’food insecurity’: towards a critical political ecology of the body in studies of women’s transnational migration. Journal of Political Ecology 21: 1-18

    Cloke, J. (2013) Empires of Waste and the Food Security Meme, Geography Compass 7/9 (2013): 622–636.

    D Maye, J Kirwan (YEAR) Food security: A fractured consensus Journal of Rural Studies 29, 1-6

    Emel, J, and Neo, H eds. Political Ecologies of Meat. Routledge, 2015.

    Essex, Jamey. 2012. Idle Hands are the Devil’s Tools: The Geopolitics and Geoeconomics of Hunger. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Vol. 102, No. 1

    Gibson, Kristina E. & Dempsey, Sarah E. (2015) Make good choices, kid: biopolitics of children’s bodies and school lunch reform in Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution children geographies Volume 13, Issue 1, 2015

    Goodman Michael K. and Sage, Colin (Eds.) Food Transgressions. Making Sense of Contemporary Food Politics

    Goodman, D. (1999) Agro-Food Studies in the ‘Age of Ecology’: Nature, Corporeality, Bio-Politics Sociologia Ruralis Volume 39, Issue 1, pages 17–38, January 1999

    Goodman, M. K. (2015) Afterword: the everyday biopolitics of care-full eating. In: Abbots, E., Lavis, A. and Attala, L. (eds.) Careful Eating: Embodied Entanglements Between Food and Care. Ashgate, Farnham. ISBN 9781472439482

    Goodman, M. K. (2015) Technicolor foods: the everyday biopolitics of Cuba. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5 (2). pp. 243-246. ISSN 2043-8214) doi: 10.1177/2043820615586690

    Guthman, J, and DuPuis, M (2006) “Embodying neoliberalism: economy, culture, and the politics of fat.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24.3: 427-448.

    Guthman, J. (2009) Teaching the Politics of Obesity: Insights into Neoliberal Embodiment and Contemporary Biopolitics Antipode Volume 41, Issue 5, pages 1110–1133

    Heynen, Nik. 2008. Bringing the body back to life through Radical Geography of Hunger: The haymarket affair and its aftermath. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, Vol. 7 (No. 1), pp. 32-44

    Holloway L (2015) Biopower and an ecology of genes: seeing livestock as meat via genetics. In: Emel J and Neo H (eds) Political Ecologies of Meat. London, Earthscan, pp.178-194

    Holloway L and Morris C (2012) Contesting genetic knowledge-practices in livestock breeding: biopower, biosocial collectivities and heterogeneous resistances. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30 60-77

    Holloway L, Bear C and Wilkinson K (2013) Re-capturing bovine life: robot-cow relationships, freedom and control in dairy farming. Journal of Rural Studies

    Kurtz Hilda E. (2015) Scaling Food Sovereignty: Biopolitics and the Struggle for Local Control of Farm Food in Rural Maine, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105:4, 859-873, DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2015.1022127

    Le Heron, R., Campbell, H., Lewis, N., & Carolan, M. (Eds.). (2016). Biological Economies: Experimentation and the politics of agri-food frontiers. Routledge.

    MacAuslan, Ian. 2009. Hunger, Discourse and the Policy Process: How do conceptualizations of the Problem of ‘Hunger’ affect its measurement and solution? European Journal of Development Research. Vol. 21., No. 3. pp. 397-418

    Mansfield, B. (2012) Gendered biopolitics of public health: regulation and discipline in seafood consumption advisories Environment and Planning D: Society and Space volume 30, pages 588 – 602.

    Mansfield, B. (2012) Race and the new epigenetic biopolitics of environmental health BioSocieties Vol. 7, 4, 352–372.

    Mansfield, B. (2012)Environmental Health as Biosecurity: “Seafood Choices,” Risk, and the Pregnant Woman as Threshold Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(5), pp.969-976.

    Morris C and Holloway L (2013) Genetics and livestock breeding in the UK: co-constructing technologies and heterogeneous biosocial collectivities. Journal of Rural Studies

    Nally, David (2011) The biopolitics of food provisioning, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Volume 36, Issue 1, pages 37–53

    Nally, David P. (2011) Human encumbrances: political violence and the Great Irish Famine. 2011.

    Peet, R., Robbins P. and Watts, M (2011) Global Political Ecology

    Roe, E. (2006) Material Connectivity, the Immaterial and the Aesthetic of Eating Practices: An Argument for How Genetically Modified Foodstuff Becomes Inedible Environ Plan A vol. 38 no. 3 465-481

    Roe, E. and Buser, M. (2016) Becoming ecological citizens:connecting people through performance art, food matter and practices Cultural Geographies1–18

    Sharp, G. (forthcoming) chapter on food and metabolic rift in James Ormrod (Ed.) Changing Our Environment Changing Ourselves, Palgrave

    Slocum, R. and Saldhana, A. (eds.) Geographies of Race and Food, Routledge.

    Smoyer Amy B. (2016) Making Fatty Girl Cakes - Food and Resistance in a Women’s Prison, The Prison Journal vol. 96 no. 2 191-209

    Smoyer Amy B. and Blankenshipb Kim M. (2014) Dealing food: Female drug users’ narratives about food in a prison place and implications for their health Int J Drug Policy 25(3): 562–568.

    Smoyer, Amy B. Prison Food Bibliography http://www.amysmoyer.com/prison-food-biblio

    Twine, Richard (2010) Animals as Biotechnology:" Ethics, Sustainability and Critical Animal Studies". Routledge.

    Vernon, James. 2007. Hunger: A Modern History. Harvard University Press

    Winter, M. (2005) Geographies of food: agro-food geographies - food, nature, farmers and agency

    Worby, E. (1994) ‘Maps, names and Ethnic Games: The Epistemology and Iconography of Colonial Power in North western Zimbabwe’, Journal of Southern African Studies 20, 3: 371-392

    Worby, E. (1995) ‘What does agrarian wage labour signify?: Cotton, commoditization and social form in Gokwe, Zimbabwe’ Journal of Peasant Studies 23, 1: 1-29

    Worby, E. (1998a) ‘Tyranny, parody, and ethnic polarity: Ritual engagements with the state in Northwestern Zimbabwe’ Journal of Southern African Studies 24, 3: 561-578

    Worby, E. (1998b) ‘Inscribing the State at the “edge of beyond”: danger and development in north-western Zimbabwe’ Political and Legal Anthropology Review 21: 55-70

    Worby, E. (2000) ‘ ‘Discipline without oppression’: sequence, timing and marginality in Southern Rhodesia’s post-war development regime’ Journal of African History 41, 1: 101-125

    #alimentation #biopolitique #articles_scientifiques #nourriture #agriculture

    Liste reçue via mailing-list critical geoforum :
    https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=CRIT-GEOG-FORUM;ccb62d05.1603

  • The Collaboration — Ben Urwand | Harvard University Press
    http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674724747

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_UJrSc4PXVM

    To continue doing business in Germany after Hitler’s ascent to power, Hollywood studios agreed not to make films that attacked the Nazis or condemned Germany’s persecution of Jews. Ben Urwand reveals this bargain for the first time—a “collaboration” (Zusammenarbeit) that drew in a cast of characters ranging from notorious German political leaders such as Goebbels to Hollywood icons such as Louis B. Mayer.

    At the center of Urwand’s story is Hitler himself, who was obsessed with movies and recognized their power to shape public opinion. In December 1930, his Party rioted against the Berlin screening of All Quiet on the Western Front, which led to a chain of unfortunate events and decisions. Fearful of losing access to the German market, all of the Hollywood studios started making concessions to the German government, and when Hitler came to power in January 1933, the studios—many of which were headed by Jews—began dealing with his representatives directly.

    Urwand shows that the arrangement remained in place through the 1930s, as Hollywood studios met regularly with the German consul in Los Angeles and changed or canceled movies according to his wishes. Paramount and Fox invested profits made from the German market in German newsreels, while MGM financed the production of German armaments. Painstakingly marshaling previously unexamined archival evidence, The Collaboration raises the curtain on a hidden episode in Hollywood—and American—history.

    • Le magazine Tablet publie une longue présentation des découvertes de Ben Urwand : New Evidence of Jewish Movie Moguls’ Collaboration with 1930s Nazis
      http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/134503/hollywood-nazi-urwand

      Urwand has titled his riveting book The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact With Hitler, and as you turn its pages you realize with dismay that collaboration is the only fitting word for the relationship between Hitler and Hollywood in the 1930s. Using new archival discoveries, Urwand alleges that some of the Hollywood studio heads, nearly all of whom were Jewish, cast their lot with Hitler almost from the moment he took power, and that they did so eagerly—not reluctantly. What they wanted was access to German audiences. What Hitler wanted was the ability to shape the content of Hollywood movies—and he got it. During the ’30s, Georg Gyssling, Hitler’s consul in Los Angeles, was invited to preview films before they were released. If Gyssling objected to any part of a movie—and he frequently did—the offending scenes were cut. As a result, the Nazis had total veto power over the content of Hollywood movies.

      What is shocking and new about Urwand’s account is its blow-by-blow description of Hollywood executives tailoring their product to meet the demands of the Nazi regime. While Hollywood’s relations with the Nazis is not a new subject, the inclination of previous historians like Thomas Doherty, author of Hollywood and Hitler, 1933-1939, who did not have access to the documents that Urwand has uncovered, has been to let the studio executives off the hook. Like most historians before Urwand, Doherty seconds Jack Warner’s self-portrait as an ardent foe of the Nazis, who stopped doing business in Germany because he was appalled by the Nazis’ treatment of Jews. But as Urwand alleges here, it wasn’t Warner who rejected the Nazis; they rejected him: Hitler dumped Warner Bros. because the studio failed to make the substantial cuts demanded by his consul Gyssling to a movie called Captured!, set in a German-run camp for foreign POWs during World War I. By July 1934, Warner Bros. had been kicked out of Berlin, and the rest of the studios were running scared. Urwand details Hollywood distribution companies faced with having to fire half of their Jewish staff members in Germany and negotiating with the Nazis so that they could hang on to other half. In 1936, all Jews associated with the American film industry in Germany were forced to leave the country. Yet even after this, the studios eagerly kept up their profitable dealings with Hitler’s regime.