Affect(ing) the Classroom: Theory and Teaching in Cultural Geography

Type: Panel
Sponsor Groups: Cultural Geography Specialty Group, Geography Education Specialty Group
Poster #:
Day: 4/7/2019
Start / End Time: 8:00 AM / 9:40 AM
Room: Maryland B, Marriott, Lobby Level
Organizers: Jared Van Ramshorst
Chairs: Jared Van Ramshorst


For some time, geographers have turned to affect and non-representational theories to better understand our “more-than-human, more-than-textual, multisensual worlds” (Lorimer 2005, 83). Far from homogenous, this work has represented a diverse array of ideas and approaches, often hotly debated, and there is now a vibrant and extensive literature on emotion, affect, and non-representational theory in geography. Despite the possibilities and “promise” of non-representational theories (Anderson and Harrison 2010), few scholars have written directly about how this body of work might be incorporated into pedagogical approaches and teaching (cf., Latham and McCormack 2009; Winders 2014). What, this panel asks, do recent debates on affect and non-representational theory look like in the classroom? How do geographers teach students about affect and non-representational theory in introductory settings? What practices, pedagogies, and methods do geographers use to translate these ideas and insights into the “doing” of cultural geography?

This roundtable panel brings together teachers, educators, and scholars to discuss the challenges, practices, and pedagogies of theory and teaching in cultural geography. The discussion is open to broad participation from individuals across the spectrum who draw from emotion, affect, and non-representational theory in a variety of ways. This panel is designed to engage the pedagogy of teaching emotion, affect, and non-representational theory, particularly in the introductory classroom. If teaching is a “significant public, accessible, transparent, and interactive way of forwarding one’s own field” (DeLyser and Rodgers 2010, 186), then what role does affect and non-representational theory have in cultural geography and higher education?


Anderson, B. and Harrison, P. 2010. Taking place: Non-representational theories and
geography. New York: Routledge.

Delyser, D. and Rodgers, B. 2010. Meaning and methods in cultural geography: Practicing the
scholarship of teaching. Cultural Geographies 17(2), 185–190.

Latham, A. and McCormack, D.P. 2009. Thinking with images in non-representational cities:
Vignettes from Berlin. Area 41(3), 252–262.

Lorimer, H. 2005. Cultural geography: The busyness of being ‘more-than-representational’.
Progress in Human Geography 29(1), 83–94.

Winders, J. 2014. From journals to classrooms: Theory and teaching in cultural geography.
Journal of Cultural Geography 31(2), 230–244.


Type Details Minutes
Introduction Jared Van Ramshorst Syracuse University 20
Panelist Leila Dawney University of Brighton, UK 20
Panelist Alan Latham University College London 20
Panelist Minelle Mahtani University of British Columbia 20
Panelist Jamie Winders Syracuse University 20

To access contact information login