Commodity Chains and the Uneven Geographies of Global ...
Transcript of Commodity Chains and the Uneven Geographies of Global ...
1
Losing our Chains:
Rethinking Commodities through Disarticulations
Marion Werner and Jennifer Bair1
Introduction to a theme issue of Environment and Planning A, guest edited by Jennifer
Bair and Marion Werner
Not for circulation or citation; The definitive, peer-reviewed and edited version of this
article is published in Environment and Planning A 43, 5: 998-1015, 2011.
Over the course of the last decade, the commodity chain construct has informed
many studies of international trade and production networks in sociology, geography,
history, and, more recently, anthropology. The interdisciplinary appeal of the chain
heuristic lies in its ability to ground abstract-prone analysis of economic globalization in
the everyday practices of firms, workers, households, states, and consumers. The
commodity chain concept was developed by Terence Hopkins and Immanuel Wallerstein
in the late 1970s to differentiate their understanding of capitalism’s territorial scope from
methodologically nationalist approaches to economic change. Instead of understanding
economic development as a sequential process whereby national markets evolve in the
direction of expanded foreign trade, the authors suggested
1 This paper represents a fully collaborative project. We are grateful to the discussants at the two AAG
panels on Disarticulations, Eric Sheppard and Melissa Wright, to the contributors, and to the Sociology
department at Florida Atlantic University, especially Farshad Araghi and Phil Hough, for graciously
hosting the workshop that led to this special issue. We are also grateful to Melissa Wright and Jim
Glassman for comments on an earlier version of this paper.
2
…[starting] with a radically different presumption. Let us conceive of something
we shall call, for want of a better conventional term, ‘commodity chains.’
What we mean by such chains is the following: take an ultimate consumable
item and trace back the set of inputs that culminated in this item, including prior
transformations, the raw materials, the transportation mechanisms, the labor
input into each of the material processes, the food inputs into the labor. This
linked set of processes we call a commodity chain. If the ultimate consumable
were, say, clothing, the chain would include the manufacture of the cloth, the
yarn, etc., the cultivation of the cotton, as well as the reproduction of the labor
forces involved in these productive activities (1977: 128).
For Hopkins and Wallerstein, a final commodity is the outcome of linked processes
connecting actors and activities across space; by studying the processes constituting a
particular commodity chain, it is possible to get analytical purchase on the complex and
concrete determinations of the global economy.
World-systems theorists mobilized the chain construct to reveal the emergence of
an international division of labor incorporating core and peripheral countries alike into a
global capitalist economy. Later iterations, including Gereffi's global commodity chains
framework (Gereffi and Korzeniewciz 1994) and the global value chains approach
(Gereffi et al. 2005; Gibbon and Ponte 2005), have shifted from the long-range, macro-
3
historical perspective of world-systems theory to a more industry- and firm-centered
model of organizational analysis.2
In reaction to this recent turn, several scholars sympathetic to the overall thrust of
the commodity chain project have called for the need to “embed,” “territorialize,” or
“spatialize” studies of transnational commodity production (Bair 2005; Dicken, Kelly,
Olds, and Yeung 2001; Dussel Peters 2008). As evident from these disparate terms, these
critiques do not represent a coherent theoretical agenda; rather they indicate a shared
skepticism about the influence of micro-social network analysis and transaction cost
economics on the study of commodity cum value chains (see Bair 2005).
Just as the original commodity chain framework burst disciplinary bounds, so too
has the ambit of its critique. Economic geographers argue that the empirical focus on
firms as meso-level actors, although yielding valuable insights into the governance
dynamics internal to production networks, has translated into a flattening of power
relations and an even further relegation of space to the empirical background (Dicken and
Malmberg 2001). Feminist scholars argue that the chain heuristic freezes complex and
relational circuits of economic activity into a fixed territorial framework where
consumption is presumed to be located in the “core,” while production takes place in the
“periphery” (Leslie and Reimer 1999; Ramamurthy 2004). Furthermore, both world-
systems theory and commodity chain analysis largely externalize social difference when
tracing macro divisions of labor, giving short shrift to the gendered and racialized forms
of labor central to the shifting geographies of commodity production (Fernández-Kelly
2 While the GCC and later GVC approaches share an interest in the chain as an analytic for comprehending
the connections between various kinds of economic activities, there are important differences between them
which have been discussed elsewhere (Bair 2005; Gibbon and Ponte 2005).
4
1983; Mullings 2004; Ramamurthy 2004; Werner 2010). In addition to the specific
insights described above, what we take from these critical engagements with the
commodity chains framework is its generative if largely unrealized potential for inter-
disciplinary theorizing of the on-going processes by which global networks of
production, trade, and consumption are continually given expression in concrete
historical and geographical relations (see Peck 2005).
Our own collaboration has been nursed by this potential and by our respective
experiences researching the volatile trajectories and shifting geographies of garment and
textile production over the past decade. The work that we have done on the changing
configuration of the apparel commodity chain led us to the conclusion that the
commodity chains literature evidences a general and systematic bias: Specifically, the
extant literature is characterized by a theoretical and empirical emphasis on
incorporation. This is manifest in the tendency of researchers to pursue the newest
production frontier of a particular commodity in order to analyze how a region becomes
linked into a chain and how this incorporation impacts local actors. We became
increasingly aware that the commodity chains approach tends to downplay, if not ignore,
the fact that changing geographies of global production reflect moments of inclusion and
exclusion. The latter refer to those processes by which regions and actors become
disconnected or expulsed from commodity chains that may be incorporating new regions
and actors elsewhere. Production volatility, precipitous booms and busts, and historical
patterns of dis/investment and dispossession are effaced by the literature’s “inclusionary
bias” towards expanding production frontiers. How would our understanding of
commodity chains, networks, and indeed, the “global economy” be different if analytical
5
attention focused upon the layered histories and uneven geographies of capitalist
expansion, disinvestment and devaluation?
The Special Issue that we have the pleasure to introduce here is the result of both
our own efforts to respond to this question as well as those of talented scholars from the
diverse disciplinary locations of sociology, geography, and feminist studies. In our role
as conveners of this conversation and guest editors, we frame these contributions under
the concept of “disarticulations:” in the broadest sense, an approach to commodity
production through the lens of the reproduction of uneven geographies. In this
introduction, we draw out the theoretical lineages of disarticulation and briefly
summarize the contents of the special issue. In the five papers that follow our
introduction, the concept of disarticulations is taken up through empirically rich,
theoretically-informed, and grounded studies. Taken together, the collection affords a
processual understanding of commodity chains as expressions of an ongoing and
continuous interaction between the production of goods, places and subjects and their
iterative incorporation and expulsion from primary circuits of capital accumulation.
Taken together, these studies demonstrate how connections across space and time are
forged through processes of disjuncture and disruption that selectively transform, or
disarticulate, existing social relations and forms of production.
Disarticulations and the Uneven Geographies of Commodity Chains
The power of a disarticulations perspective lies in connecting an analysis of
global commodities to the politics of disinvestment, devaluation, and place- and subject-
making which make their production possible. In elaborating this concept, we draw
6
insights selectively from recent revisions of the Marxist concept of “primitive
accumulation,” feminist analyses of gender and production, and long-standing debates
surrounding the question of “articulation.”
Recent Marxist scholarship interrogates the complex geographies of what were
hitherto considered historically distinct stages of capitalism in classical Marxist
approaches: that is, of expanded reproduction, on the one hand, and primitive (or
originary) accumulation, on the other. In the classical view, the era of capitalist
accumulation based on the appropriation of surplus value from exploited labor is
premised on a prior phase of separating labor from its means of production through
extra-economic means such as violence, fraud, and theft (see Perelman 2000; de Angelis
2001). The intensification of market forces worldwide, and the rolling back of the
commons in the broadest sense of non-commodified social relations, has foregrounded a
rethinking of these processes and their historical and geographical connections (see
Glassman 2006 for an excellent review). Rather than conceiving of capitalist relations of
production as a “second stage” of accumulation, Massimo de Angelis describes the
common character of accumulation and primitive accumulation. “The divorcing
embedded in the definition of primitive accumulation,” he argues, “can be understood…
as a reassertion of capital’s priorities vis-à-vis those social forces that run against this
separation” (2001: 14). This play of forces, between what is constituted as within
capitalist relations of production and what is positioned as their interior limit, is not
confined to the prehistory of capital, but is rather an ongoing dynamic of capitalism
which repeatedly reproduces the spatial and social boundaries of “regular” accumulation.
7
A rethinking of primitive accumulation and its geographies has gained broad
attention in anglo-American academia via the work of David Harvey and his notion of
accumulation by dispossession. Harvey emphasizes capital’s imperative to create its own
exteriority as a means to guarantee the reproduction of accumulation (2003). He draws
inspiration from Marx’s notion of the industrial reserve army, created through the
expulsion of labor from capitalist relations of production. “Modern industry’s whole
form of motion… depends,” Marx concluded, “on the constant transformation of a part of
the working population into unemployed and semi-employed ‘hands’” (1976: 787).
Generalizing from this imperative of capital to create its own provisional outside, Harvey
trains our attention on processes that render both workers and resources external to
capital’s primary relations of production in order to seize upon them again in an “original
accumulation” sort of way. Specifically, crises of overaccumulation, he argues, release
assets at close to zero cost in circumstances where the holders of overaccumulated capital
appear as buyers of last resort, frequently related to, as Luxemburg writes, the open
display of “force, fraud, oppression, [and] looting” (quoted in Harvey 2003: 137).
At the heart of Harvey’s and de Angelis’ distinct engagements with primitive
accumulation is an attention to the relationship between capitalist relations of production
and the forces that define its social and spatial contours. These engagements are central
to our notion of disarticulations. In our view, and in contrast to Harvey’s formulation
linking dispossession to moments of crisis, the contours of capital accumulation and
those people and places provisionally externalized from its relations are best understood
through everyday practices and struggles over value. Processes of devaluation, for
example, are an inherent dynamic of capitalism, but they cannot be reduced to the logic
8
of capital. For one thing, capital alone does not determine whose labor will be exploited
and where. The availability of labor and its differential valuation are inseparable from
constructions of social difference based on interlocking and overdetermined hierarchies
of race, gender, nation, and class. Returning to Marx’s observations about the industrial
reserve army, consider that labor thrown out of primary circuits of commodity production
or made available through dispossession is most often not the same labor “ready to hand”
at a subsequent moment of expanded reproduction.
The case of women in export factories in the global South is here exemplary.
Harvey discusses the impact of rapid industrialization in the global South on women who
“provide the bulk of labour power” in light manufacturing industries. While
acknowledging the exploitative and punishing conditions in which many such women
work, he asks “whether the problem in Indonesia, for example, was the impact of rapid
capital industrialization on life chances during the 1980s and 1990s or the devaluation
and deindustrialization occasioned through the financial crisis of 1997-98 that
demolished much of what industrialization had achieved” (2003: 163-164). Contending
that the second development “did far more damage to the long-term hopes, aspirations,
and possibilities of the mass of the impoverished population than did the first,” Harvey
draws out the implication that “primitive accumulation that opens up a path to expanded
reproduction is one thing, and accumulation by dispossession that disrupts and destroys a
path already opened up is quite another” (ibid: 164).
Our interest here is not in evaluating which is better for women workers and their
communities: expanded reproduction through the incorporation of feminized labor into
capitalist relations of production, or the expulsion of that labor from wage employment.
9
Rather, our point is that the disposability of women workers is not an inexorable
consequence of capitalist crisis, but rather an ongoing outcome of reproducing capitalist
relations of production within specific historical contexts that are shaped by social
difference (Wright 2006; Bair 2010). Particular episodes, like the Asian financial crisis,
may throw the relationship between gender and capital into particularly sharp relief, but
this relationship is irreducible to such moments of crisis.
An anecdote from our fieldwork in a region of Mexico called La Laguna is
illustrative here: In an interview with a large garment firm, the owner recounted the
company’s growth and decline in rich detail, explaining its considerable investments in
new technologies and new departments, the precipitous downturn in production in recent
years, and the impact on employment, which had fallen by half. When we asked how the
proportion of women in the workforce had changed over this period, given that women
workers formed the majority of the factory workforce in the late 1990s, the owner
himself was surprised by the low figure (30% female) that the manager next to him cited
in response to the question. Upon learning that more than two-thirds of the bodies seated
behind sewing machines on his production floor were male, he looked around the table at
his six male colleagues and exclaimed with surprise, “strange, isn’t it guys, that we’ve
become a company of men!”
To be sure, significant shifts in the global garment trade have occurred over the
past decade, precipitated in large measure by trade liberalization and the phase-out of
quotas on clothing imports. The changing geography of textile and clothing production
globally is reflected in the local crisis in La Laguna’s apparel industry, as our interview
with the struggling garment firm described above suggests. But neither the causes of this
10
crisis, be they fluctuating currencies and/or a new trade regime, nor its consequences, be
they factory closures and/or massive lay-offs, are sufficient for explaining the way in
which this and other remaining export factories in La Laguna have become companies of
men. It is the particularity of dispossession, we suggest, as a structurally contingent
process stretched over and reproducing the terrain of social and geographical difference,
which explains this outcome and underwrites capital accumulation more generally. In
other words, while dispossession gestures towards the tendency of capital to conditionally
exclude certain kinds of resources, like labor power, from circuits of accumulation, this
concept alone cannot explain whose labor will be provisionally externalized where.
Disarticulations, we argue, lend dispossession its concrete geographical and social form,
reworking the uneven geographies of capitalism.
Addressing the contours of social and spatial difference and how these are
selectively disconnected from circuits of commodity production is thus a central part of
our concern. It is insufficient, however, simply to extend commodity chain analysis by
studying the people and places that have been excluded from them. In our view, moments
of exclusion or expulsion are not simply obverse instances of the moments of
incorporation that are studied in much of the literature; what is needed, rather, is closer
analytical attention to the relationship between inclusion and exclusion as ongoing
processes that are constitutive of commodity chains. Thus, we call for a deeper
engagement with the processes that engender the forging and breaking of links between
circuits of commodity production, people and places. In order to address these dynamics,
we turn briefly to the concept of articulation that emerged from a set of debates which
partly prefigured the current re-engagement with primitive accumulation.
11
At the time that Wallerstein and other world-systems theorists were formulating
their commodity chains framework, the term “articulation” was central to the modes of
production controversy at the heart of Marxist development debates (see Foster-Carter
1978; also Hart 2007 for a recent review). French Marxist economic anthropology and
neo-Marxist anti-colonial scholars were debating how links are forged, or articulated,
between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production. World-systems theorists
staked a decidedly negative position in these debates, rejecting the very premise of
multiple modes and insisting that, since the long sixteenth century, the world economy
expressed a single, capitalist mode of production differentiated into core, periphery, and
later, semi-periphery. Commodity chains were one way that world-systems theorists
understood relationships between these three regions of differentiated, but singular,
capitalist development.
We do not know whether the rejection of the modes of production premise
influenced the original formulation of the commodity chains framework by Hopkins and
Wallerstein, nor do we suggest any theoretical homology between links in commodity
chains and links between modes of production. Our point is simply to note that the
world-systems tradition of commodity chain research has paid relatively little attention to
how links in these chains are forged. This omission seems to have left the framework
especially vulnerable to functionalist interpretations of the circuits of commodity
production that are studied through it.
If world-system theorists attempted to move beyond the vexing question of
capitalist/non-capitalist connections by redefining the totality of uneven geographies as a
single world capitalism, Stuart Hall seized upon the problematic of linking itself, that is,
12
“articulation.” In his famous essay on the topic, Race, articulation and societies
structured in dominance (1980), Hall reinterpreted debates on colonial capitalism – and
specifically the relationship between race, class, and capital accumulation – through
articulation as both the material and ideological work to link up relations of production
and complexly structured social formations. Drawing on Althusser and Gramsci, Hall
called for an understanding of articulation as the forging of a unity out of difference.
Such a unity is not the expression of an identity, but rather a contingent structure
maintained by the on-going, and relatively autonomous, material and ideological
processes of linking different social and structural elements. For example, rather than
reduce race to class or theorize race outside material relations, Hall argued that “[o]ne
must start… from the concrete historical ‘work’ which racism accomplishes under
specific historical conditions—as a set of economic, political and ideological practices…
concretely articulated with other practices in a social formation”(338).
Rethinking the links in commodity chains through processes of articulation and
disarticulation trains our attention on the kind of on-going work that Hall signals. As we
argue in our previous discussion of primitive accumulation, gender and export
manufacturing, such an analysis requires thinking through both the concrete work of
historically particular sets of social relations to secure commodity production, and the
related processes of devaluation and exclusion that facilitate the remaking of these
networks and chains. In bringing these insights to bear on the study of commodity
networks and chains, we make an important corrective to Hall’s generative framework:
the work of linking is both social and spatial. It is not only the work of linking up
constructions of social difference with processes of valuation and capital accumulation,
13
but also that of reproducing geographical difference by linking and de-linking places as
commodity chains are formed and re-formed. In attending to disarticulations in this
sense, as dynamic processes that iteratively reproduce the subjects and places included
within and excluded from global commodity production, the study of commodity chains
can more fully grasp the uneven geographies that condition their possibility.
* * *
The papers presented in this Special Issue take up the challenge of rethinking
commodities through disarticulations via research into the linking and unmooring of
people and places to and from transnational circuits of commodity production. The
collection assembled here grows out of ongoing conversations at two paper sessions at
the 2008 annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers and a spring 2009
workshop at Florida Atlantic University. As will be clear to readers of this special issue,
the original call for work on commodity disarticulations that inspired this conversation
yielded diverse contributions drawing upon varied theoretical orientations. Each of the
articles skillfully weaves together rich, empirical studies of commodity production with
the author’s (or authors’) unique interpretation of a disarticulations perspective.
Moreover, contributors engage with questions of power and politics in their studies,
gesturing towards the difference a disarticulations perspective can make towards both a
new understanding of commodity chains and critical notions of the politics surrounding
them.
14
In the first paper of the special issue, we deploy the concept of disarticulations in
order to make sense of a dramatic but short-lived surge in garment exports from La
Laguna, a region of north-central Mexico that fashioned itself the “blue jeans capital of
the world” during the 1990s. We historicize the blue jeans boom and the bust that
followed it by locating both within the region’s long involvement in extra-territorial
circuits of textile trade and production. For most of the twentieth century, La Laguna’s
economic and social landscape was dominated by cotton, and after a dramatic episode of
land redistribution in the mid-1930s, much of this cotton was grown on collective farms
called ejidos that were created from expropriated hacienda lands. In explaining how
Mexico’s most important cotton-growing region became a center for the production of
jeans made from imported (cotton) denim, we emphasize the confluence of two factors:
First, the legacy of the 1936 agrarian reform, which created a class of landed
smallholders in La Laguna, but then slowly dispossessed these farmers, first by
cultivating their economic and political dependence on the ruling party, and later by
withdrawing state support in the context of a sweeping restructuring of the country’s land
tenure policies that created a new property rights regime for ejidal land. The dislocations
we describe in La Laguna’s agricultural sector coincided with a second, protracted crisis
among industrial producers following the collapse of Mexico’s state-led industrialization
model. La Laguna’s NAFTA-era export dynamism thus relied both on trade policies that
encouraged a reorientation of domestic firms from the national market towards export-
oriented production for U.S. buyers, and on processes of disinvestment that made
devalued assets, both human and material, available to fuel a short-lived but ultimately
ephemeral blue jeans boom. We argue that a specific rural industrialization program that
15
established cooperative sewing factories on a number of La Laguna’s ejidos represented
the crystallization of these disarticulations in both the agricultural and industrial sector,
and the way in which La Laguna continues to be produced through the various moments
of linking and de-linking to the cotton-textile-apparel chain.
In a similar vein, Phil Hough examines three episodes of disarticulation in the
Caguán region of Colombia. Hough shows that the process by which the region becomes
linked into each new chain emerges from and reflects the contradictions engendered by
the previously dominant mode of capital accumulation. In the 1950s, the Caguán became
incorporated into a domestically-oriented cattle commodity chain producing meats and
hides for the national market. This form of cattle-raising was land-intensive but labor-
expulsive, and the political and economic marginalization of the peasantry on which it
relied set the stage for the Caguán’s incorporation into the cocaine commodity chain in
the late 1970s, under the auspices of the FARC. By the 1990s, cattle-ranching was again
dominant, but the incorporation of the Caguán into a dairy commodity chain producing
dry milks depended on the expulsion of the FARC by the Colombian government and the
heightened, ongoing militarization of the region. Hough emphasizes the relationship
between these moments of linking, de-linking, and re-linking, and the exercise of
politico-military force, either by the state or by para-state organizations. The dialectical
and processual understanding of the disarticulations concept developed by Hough
highlights the relations of domination and occasionally force that undergird commodity
chains, and argues for a view of such chains as political constructions rather than the
natural expressions of sectoral logics or market dynamics.
16
Intricately weaving together the articulation of new subjectivities with changing
forms of commodity chains, Priti Ramamurthy explores the concrete historical work that
caste accomplishes in relations of production of cotton seed. The author traces these
connections through a study of upper caste, large landowners’ abandonment of the
commodity, on the one hand, and the incorporation of Dalit (formerly untouchable castes)
smallholders, on the other, as the global cotton seed commodity chain is reworked over
complex social and spatial terrain in rural Andhra Pradesh, India. Through subtle and
rich ethnographic analysis, her contribution explores the paradoxes of exploitation and
opportunity that mark the participation of these smallholders in the global cotton seed
network. Ramamurthy interprets these paradoxes through smallholders’ narratives and
presentations of self, crystallized in an affect of “perplexity.” Own-account farmers
describe cotton seed production on their small plots as a sign of caste advancement,
lending a degree of status connoted by what they describe as “our labor for us,” in
contrast to their experiences of tied and poorly remunerated labor and humiliating
practices of caste domination. At the same time, cotton seed production brings with it
intensified exploitation and significant indebtedness, yielding slim to no returns, one of
the reasons why large, upper caste landholders have abandoned the commodity. High
aspirations and ambivalent outcomes constitute what Ramamurthy describes as
smallholders’ vernacular calculus of the economic, “the matrix through which
smallholder’s consent to labor and their incorporation in the global commodity chain
becomes intelligible.” This framing of smallholders’ experiences demonstrates the
shortcomings of economistic frameworks, including World Bank discourses on
productivity and small land tenure. The disarticulations and re-articulations of class and
17
caste evidenced in new production arrangements and emergent caste-based political
movements create new conditions of subjection and exploitation in this global
commodity chain.
In their contribution, Christian Berndt and Marc Boeckler reinterpret a
disarticulations perspective as the ambivalent “play” of framing and overflowing that
underpins commodity chains. Drawing on science and technology studies and actor-
network theory, the authors argue that the making of commodity chains always implies
framing – or the severing of connections -- and, simultaneously, the management of
related overflows: those human and non-human relations that interrupt the uniformity of
the commodity and the possibility for its exchange. Their case is made through the
analysis of that inveterate north-south traveler, the tomato. What connections must be
made and cut in order for a seemingly uniform tomato to supply northern consumer
markets year-round? The authors train our attention on at least two systems: first, the
controlled opening and closing of borders to Mexican and Moroccan tomatoes timed to
protect domestic production during the growing season in the US and the EU. The
management of borders produces fragmented agrarian spaces in Mexico and Morocco,
where export agricultural enclaves are framed as modern markets, and marginalized areas
appear as both their exterior and as justification for liberalizing land regimes. Second, the
authors analyze supply chain systems that, on the one hand, set and enforce standards
along the chain, seemingly dissolving north-south differences, and, on the other, create
borders to reinstantiate this difference in order to contain overflow. Racism and
nationalism combine with chain surveillance technologies to reinscribe the southern
tomato as an alien commodity when overflows like Salmonella are to be managed.
18
Overall, Berndt and Boeckler’s contribution demonstrates how framing and overflowing,
similar to disarticulations, reproduces uneven power relations and geographies through
the on-going work of constructing and stabilizing the tomato commodity chain.
The final contribution by Lieba Faier similarly interprets disarticulations as a host
of relationships that are both effaced by commodity chains and repeatedly interrupt their
organization. Faier focuses on the unstable and complex natural-cultural ecologies and
human-nonhuman interactions that both constitute and disrupt commodity exchange. Her
insights draw upon ethnographic work with collectors and traders of the matsutake (or
pine) mushroom in Japan. The possibilities for matsutake exchange are shaped by
changing weather patterns, forest use practices, geopolitics and the related spread of pine
wilt disease that has attacked the mushrooms’ tree hosts in many regions in Japan. These
contingent relationships condition the participation of particular areas and peoples in
matsutake exchange in highly unequal ways. For example, matsutake pickers in a rural
region with few economic opportunities experience these ecologies as part of a more
general feeling of vulnerability to “the global” (global warming, global trade, global
nature, etc.). Their experience stands in contrast to centrally positioned traders in Tokyo
who transform these uncertainties into business opportunities, and narrate their actions in
terms of “mastery” over the instabilities introduced by matsutake ecologies. Thus,
matsutake commodity chains are revealed to be far more than the linking of various
regions and actors (human and nonhuman). Rather, they are shaped by shifting ecologies
that de-link places and people from these chains on the one hand, and condition the
position and power of human actors on the other. Faier’s contribution gestures towards
the challenge of considering how nonhuman relations and ecological differences shape
19
inclusions and exclusions in commodity chains and thus offers much to the development
of a disarticulations perspective.
* * *
These papers, and the general notion of a disarticulations perspective that
underpins them, offer an important corrective to the study of commodity chains. As long
as these chains are imagined as positive nodes in global production networks that are
assumed to reflect taken-for-granted uneven geographies -- rather than links shot through
with disconnections that reproduce these geographies -- both our understanding of
commodity production and the possibilities for forging progressive politics around them
will remain limited. Perhaps, by bringing dis/articulations to the fore, new, creative
possibilities can emerge for creating counter-hegemonic connections across the vast
social and spatial differences that make much commodity production possible.
Bair J, 2005, "Global Capitalism and Commodity Chains: Looking Back, Going
Forward" Competition & Change 9 153-180
Bair J, 2010, "On Difference and Capital: Gender and the Globalization of Production"
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 36, forthcoming
De Angelis M, 2001, "Marx and primitive accumulation: the continuous character of
capital's 'enclosures'" The Commoner 2
Dicken P, Kelly P, Olds K, Yeung H W C, 2001, "Chains and networks, territories and
scales: towards a relational framework for analysing the global economy" Global
Networks 1 89-112
Dicken P, Malmberg A, 2001, "Firms in Territories: A Relational Perspective" Economic
Geography 77 345-363
20
Dussel Peters E, 2008, "GCCs and Development: A Conceptual and Empirical Review"
Competition & Change 12 11-27
Fernández-Kelly M, 1983 For we are sold, I and my people: Women and Industry in
Mexico's Frontier (SUNY Press, Albany, NY)
Foster-Carter A, 1978, "The Modes of Production Controversy" New Left Review
Gereffi G, Humphrey J, Sturgeon T, 2005, "The governance of global value chains"
Review of International Political Economy 12 78-104
Gereffi G, Korzeniewicz M, 1994 Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism
(Greenwood Press, Westport, CT)
Gibbon P, Ponte S, 2005 Trading down: Africa, value chains, and the global economy
(Temple University Press, Philadelphia)
Glassman J, 2006, "Primitive accumulation, accumulation by dispossession,
accumulation by 'extra-economic' means" Progress in Human Geography 30 608-625
Hall S, 1980, "Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance", in Sociological
theories: Race and Colonialism (UNESCO, Poole, England) pp 305-345
Hart G, 2007, "Changing Concepts of Articulation: Political Stake in South Africa
Today" Review of African Political Economy 111 85-101
Harvey D, 2003 The New Imperialism (Oxford University Press, London)
Hopkins T, Wallerstein I, 1977, "Patterns of development of the modern world-system"
Review 1 11-145
Leslie D, Reimer S, 1999, "Spatializing commodity chains" Progress in Human
Geography 23 401-420
Marx K, 1976 Capital, Volume I (Penguin Classics, London)
Mies M, 1982 The Lace Makers of Narsapur (ILO, Geneva)
Mullings B, 2004, "Globalization and the territorialization of the new Caribbean service
economy" Journal of Economic Geography 4 275-298
Ong A, 1987 Spirits of Resistance and Capitalist Discipline (State University of New
York Press, Albany, NY)
Peck J, 2005, "Economic Sociologies in Space" Economic Geography 81 129-176
Perelman M, 2000 The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the
Secret History of Primitive Accumulation (Duke University Press, Durham, NC)
21
Ramamurthy P, 2004, "Why Is Buying a 'Madras' Cotton Shirt a Political Act? A
Feminist Commodity Chain Analysis" Feminist Studies 30 734-769
Werner M, 2010, "Embodied negotiations: identity, space and livelihood after trade zones
in the Dominican Republic" Gender, Place and Culture 17 725-741
Wright, M, 2006 Disposable Women and Other Myths of Global Capitalism (Routledge,
New York)