➤ academic writing

We’re currently moving slowly from the curatorial stage of the followthethings.com project through a reflective to an analytical stage. Below are abstracts, snippets and screenshots of the work that’s now emerging. We’ll update this!

Cook et al, I. (2017) followthethings.com: analysing relations between the making, reception and impact of commodity activism in a transmedia world. in Ola Söderström, Laure Kloetzer & Hugues Jeannerat (eds) Innovations Sociales: Comment les Sciences Sociales contribuent à transformer la Société, MAPS: Université de Neuchâtel, 50-61 Full Text

What we are keen to find out are what filmmaking, artistic and activist tactics lead to what kinds of public and corporate responses, and with what kinds of impacts on whom. There is an established argument that, when this work is didactic and tries to enroll its audiences through blame, shame and guilt, it tends to fail. Audiences feel powerless, overwhelmed, apathetic, and angry at those making them feel this way rather that at the injustices exposed (Barnett 2010, Sandlin & Milam 2008, Cook & Woodyer 2012). Even the most cursory examination of our website suggests that the elements of, and relationships set out in, this argument are quite narrowly defined. To illustrate this, we offer below a taste of what’s to come from the analysis of the followthethings.com archive. We provisionally outline one engagement tactic, one kind of consumer response, one kind of corporate response, and one kind of impact.

Cook et al, I. (2016) Les géographies du numérique: on en veut encore! | More digital geographies, please. Justice Spatiale | Spatial Justice, 10 Full text in English & en Français

Researchers now expect their peers to discuss the kinds of laughter their work evokes. It’s a signal of the complex registers through which research quality is judged. Maybe it ‘raises consciousness and … reveals a darker reality hidden behind the veil of appearances’ (Lewis 2010, 643). Perhaps it ‘open[s] us an oblique path that links together heterogeneous semantic contents previously unrelated’ (Virno in ibid). Hopefully it ‘get[s] difficult messages across to a broad range of actors and decreases the risk of encountering angry reactions or alienating bystanders’ (Kutz-Flamenbaum 2014, 298).

Cook, I. & Crang, P. (2016) Consumption and its geographies. in Daniels, P., Bradshaw, M., Shaw, D., Sidaway, J. & Hall, T. (eds.) An introduction to human geography. Harlow: Pearson, 379-398


Cook et al, I. (2014) Fabrication critique et web 2.0: les géographies matérielles de followthethings.com. Géographie et cultures, 91-92, 23-48 Full text in Englishen Français

Recent reviews of new media scholarship have criticised it for paying little attention to the social and environmental (in)justices in its technical infrastructure. At the same time, scholars of social and environmental (in)justice are experimenting with web2.0, using wikis, blogs, twitter and other social media to conduct and disseminate their research. These strands have collided in the making of a website called followthethings.com which simultaneously critiques the injustices embedded in everyday things, whilst also being made and maintained using everyday things, most notably a laptop, its software and the technical infrastructure of web2.0. Drawing on an emerging literature on critical making, this paper explains what has been learned about the material geographies of web2.0 and commodity activism through this making process.

Cook et al, I. (2014) ‘Organic Public Geographies and REF Impact’. Acme: an international e-journal for critical geographies, 13(1), 47-51 Full text

‘Follow the things’ … [is] a radical research and public pedagogy project. It taps into public curiosity about ‘where stuff comes from’, and draws into its processes a proliferating genre of non-academic ‘follow the things’ work, including documentary films, art work, journalism and activism. Its intellectual / political purpose is to critique the fetishism of commodities, to show abstract relations between things as social relations between people (Harvey, 2010). Its pedagogical/political purpose, within and beyond academia, is to encourage critical thought, conversation and ‘do it yourself’ research that enables diverse people to follow their own things, consider the social relations and trade (in)justices in the lives of those things, and then to share, discuss and perhaps be activist with their findings (Cook et al., 2007a; Cook and Woodyer, 2012).



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s