This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17

U.S. Code).
 Ethics, Place and Environment

ISSN: 1366-879X (Print) 1469-6703 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cepe20

Place Geography and the Ethics of Care:

Introductory Remarks on the Geographies of
Ethics, Responsibility and Care

Cheryl McEwan & Michael K. Goodman

To cite this article: Cheryl McEwan & Michael K. Goodman (2010) Place Geography and the
Ethics of Care: Introductory Remarks on the Geographies of Ethics, Responsibility and Care,
Ethics, Place and Environment, 13:2, 103-112, DOI: 10.1080/13668791003778602

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13668791003778602

Published online: 20 Oct 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1494

View related articles

Citing articles: 46 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cepe20
Ethics, Place and Environment
Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2010, 103–112

GUEST EDITORIAL

Place Geography and the Ethics of Care:

Introductory Remarks on the Geographies
of Ethics, Responsibility and Care
CHERYL MCEWAN1 & MICHAEL K. GOODMAN2
1
Department of Geography, Durham University
2
Department of Geography, Kings College London

ABSTRACT In a recent review article, Jeff Popke (2006, p. 510) calls for a ‘more direct
engagement with theories of ethics and responsibility’ on the part of human geographers, and for
a reinscription of the social as a site of ethics and responsibility. This requires that we also
continue to develop ways of thinking through our responsibilities toward unseen others—both
unseen neighbours and distant others—and to cultivate a renewed sense of social interconnec-
tedness. Popke suggests that a feminist-inspired ethic of care might be instrumental in developing
this expanded, relational and collective vision of the social, which is particularly prescient given
the contemporary economic downturn throughout the globe. Thus, as the ‘moral turn’ in
geography continues to evolve, this special issue seeks to bring together geographers working
within feminist or feminist-inspired frameworks, and with a shared interest in the changing
geographies of ethics, responsibility and care. The collection of papers has its origins in
conference sessions on Care-full Geographies, organised by the Guest Editors at the Annual
Meeting of the Association of American Geographers in 2007. In this editorial we seek to position
the papers within broader debates about care, responsibility and ethics that have emerged in
geography and the wider social sciences in recent years, and to highlight the key issues that have
framed these debates.

Geographies of Care/Caring
Geographical debates about ethical and political responsibility have produced a rich
understanding of the relationships between space and spatiality, on the one hand,
and notions of care and caring on the other. Much of this work on geographies of
caring has been concerned with distance, or the ethics arising out of a sense
of responsibility towards those with whom we have caring relationships and toward
different and distant others. Feminist geographies, in particular, have sought to
investigate the complex spatialities of caring, bringing the social spaces of care, and
particularly of care work, under renewed scrutiny. In large part, feminist geogra-
phers have been concerned with ‘care ethics’ (Popke, 2006, p. 506), wherein caring is
not so much an activity as a way of relating to others (Held, 2006; Smith, 2005;
Staeheli & Brown, 2003). This work also challenges the notion of care, emotion and

Correspondence Address: Cheryl McEwan, Department of Geography, Durham University, South Road,
Durham, UK, DH1 3LE. Email: [email protected]

1366-879X Print/1469-6703 Online/10/020103–10 ß 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13668791003778602
104 C. McEwan and M. K. Goodman

welfare being restricted to the space of the private. McKie et al. (2002), for example,
explore the blurring of the boundary between formal and informal care, illustrating
the ways in which informal caring feelings and activities reflect the experiences of
people in families and relationships, employment, organisations and institutions, and
are subject to a range of policies both directly and indirectly related to acts of care.
The reduction of care to the private realm reserved for women, as something below
politics, has been challenged by feminist geographers inspired particularly by the
work of feminist political theorists who posit care as the key to social accountability
and responsible citizenship (see, for example, Tronto, 1993).
In advanced economies the question of who cares (specifically for children, the
elderly and other dependents) has a burgeoning resonance given the return of women
to the workplace, changing patterns of family formation and geographical location,
and an ageing population (Parry et al., 2005). The shortage of people to undertake care
work becomes critical and highlights an increasingly complex array of care options:
paid and unpaid, public and private, formal and informal, regulated and unregulated.
Where the state is reluctant to provide for care, the burden often devolves to families,
the more affluent of whom may respond by ‘buying in’ care. These changes not only
impact on individuals or households, but also have global consequences, as the world’s
poor fill in the care deficit (Ehrenreich & Hochschild, 2003). Thus, these new
geographies of care also have implications for understandings of work, as care
practices cross boundaries between different domains of what is constructed as
‘labour’ (cf. Castree et al., 2004). Unpaid private care work is increasingly
commodified and borne by transnational female migrants (see, for example,
Cravey, 2005), whilst care previously supplied by the state is increasingly shifted to
the family. Kim England’s paper exemplifies these trends and the issues that emerge
from them through a case study of the (re)placement of caring into the home in
Canada. She explores debates about the care crisis and the profound effects this is
having on the relationship between states, markets and households, the parameters of
citizenship, and the responsibilities of both the collective and the individual. Her paper
examines proposed ‘solutions’ to this crisis, and reflects on how the spaces of
responsibilities and care are shaped by the ways in which relational geographies of
actually existing neoliberalisms are played out on the ground. Similarly, in her paper
Rosie Cox picks up on this theme of the practices of care, but from the angle of both
care work and instances of ‘care’ in food networks, to explore both their practical and
theoretical problems and possibilities. Indeed, if we expand on what it is we mean by
‘labour’ in the geographies of care/caring, then both the care ‘work’ of shopping and
animal husbandry, as explored by Mara Miele and Adrian Evans here, and the ‘hands
on dirt’ approach of permaculturalists that Maria de la Bellacasa discusses in her
paper take on even more salience as ethical/moral practice. Thus, across the set of
papers gathered in this themed section, care work and the work of caring constructs
the ‘care worker’ through sets of different practices, engagements and spaces.

Relational Geographies of Care and Responsibility

While feminist geographers have highlighted the political-economy of care in the
context of neoliberalism, theoretical and conceptual debates about the ethics of
care and responsibility and their complex spatialities have emerged within
 Guest Editorial 105

geography’s so-called ‘moral turn’. In particular, questions about caring at a distance

have revolved around the possibilities of extending an ethos of concern for those
most proximate to those spatially removed (Corbridge, 1993, 1994, 1998; Silk, 1998;
Smith, 1998, 2000, 2002; see also Lee & Smith, 2004). Geographies and ethics of
connectivity and collective responsibility have been explored in most detail in
research on ethical consumption, wherein increased knowledge of the plight of
distant workers has effected a turn towards ethically-sourced or fairly-traded
products. As Barnett et al. (2005, pp. 24–25; Barnett 2005; see also Barnett & Land,
2007) point out, however, models of moral agency in consumption that foreground
the relationship between geography, knowledge and responsibility have tended to be
problematic. This is because they focus on the responsibilities of individuals rather
than how individuals can become collective actors, and they underplay a range of
other considerations (in addition to knowledge of distant others) that play a role
in shaping people’s dispositions towards others. Thus debates about ethics in
geography have been accused of turning attention away from the political since they
focus on individual rather than collective action. As Braidotti (2006, p. 119) argues,
theories that rely on a liberal vision of the subject as moral agent cannot answer the
questions of why people should care, how we get others to care, and what do we do
with people who simply do not care. Nor do they acknowledge issues of power that
emerge in asking these questions.
In contrast, Barnett et al. (2005, p. 43) propose a model of responsibility in which
individual ethical decisions are connected to broader mobilisations, and in which
‘individualised ethical responsibility is transformed into a practice of collective,
political responsibility’ (cf. Cook et al., 2007; Goodman, 2008). This has resonances
with the recent focus by feminist geographers on notions of ‘care-scapes’ and care
ethics. McKie et al. (2002), for example, use the conceptual framework of
caringscapes to explore the ways in which informal interdependencies across the
lifecourse, at different spatial scales, can be enacted through a variety of forms of
communication, including expressive embodiment. Geographers have also begun
to explore spaces in which a feminist ethic of care connects morality, responsibility
and social justice (see the special edition of Environment and Planning A 35, 2003),
and in which social relations produced through emotion and emotional connections
are also understood as sites of power (Lawson, 2007).
Models of collective responsibility are also based on relational understandings
of space and place. The ways in which geographies of responsibility meld with the
ethics of care through these relational understandings is perhaps most clearly
articulated by Doreen Massey (2004). Massey outlines a politics of connectivity,
based on the mutual constitution of distant places, through which we may feel
a sense of responsibility for places to which we are not directly connected. Again,
responsibility is not at an individual level, but at the collective level. For example, as
Young (2003) argues, we are not individually responsible for poor working wages
and conditions in the sweatshops serving global markets, but as participants in the
global economy and consumers of the products made under these conditions, we
bear collective political responsibility. Scale is clearly significant since moral and
ethical issues operate differently, and sometimes in contradiction, at different spatial
scales; Whatmore (1997) hints at this with her discussions of a ‘relational ethic’.
For example, the moral imperative to provide for one’s family may work against
106 C. McEwan and M. K. Goodman

a wider ethic of care invoked by global inequities that would involve subsuming
the interests of one’s household to those of distant strangers (Miller, 2001).
In response, Massey develops a relational understanding of ethics and responsibility
that is able to bridge these different scales, arguing that the global should be
approached through the local so that a sense of connectivity and responsibility
across distance can be fostered. Drawing on these insights, Jackson et al. (2009,
p. 20; emphasis in original) argue that, ‘Thinking relationally about the
connections between scales might offer an alternative to conventional thinking
about the politics of space and place’. It also appeals directly to thinking about care
as an activity, and as a kind of universal, arising out of a sense of responsibility
toward others, in which responsibility is ‘located not in the abstract universals
of justice, but rather in the recognition of our intersubjective being’ (Popke,
2006, p. 507).
This notion of intersubjectivity also points towards a further dilemma for ethics
of care, which is highlighted by Miele and Evans and Puig de la Bellacasa in this
issue, specifically that of how to develop an ethic of care towards non-human others
(see also Lorimer, 2007). Again, we can think of this both in terms of care in the
abstract and care as performed through consumer choices and behaviour. The
complexities of caring are clearly apparent when considering the ethical choices that
inform the buying and consuming of food. There are issues around caring for one’s
own health, or caring for others (for example, children or dependents). Sometimes
these would complement caring for animal welfare, but not always. Caring for a
family on a limited budget might mean exercising choices that do not include
consideration of animal welfare; caring for one’s health might mean consuming meat
in the case of poor health arising from deficiencies. There are possibilities, however,
as Miele and Evans demonstrate, for using relational approaches and notions of
intersubjectivities between human and non-humans in order to develop a broader
ethic of care around animal welfare. In a similar vein, Puig de la Bellacasa brings the
ethics of the permaculture movement—which aim to create sustainable human
habitats by following ‘natural’ patterns—into dialogue with other discussions
regarding bios and naturecultures, or the interdependence of all forms of life. She
argues for an approach to the ethical as an everyday doing that connects the personal
to the collective, decentres the human, and does not ground ethical obligation in
moral norms, but in concrete relationalities in the making. These papers thus begin
to move beyond the liberal definition of the individual and to account for the
construction of desiring subjects of an alternative, more ‘caring’ kind:

Interconnectedness and the argument that ‘we’ are all in this together, are best
served by a nomadic, non-unitary vision of the subject which has dissolved the
boundaries of the bourgeois individualism and redefined itself as a collective,
multi-layered yet singular entity. (Braidotti, 2006, p. 119)

Viewed from this perspective, as Puig de la Bellacasa suggests, the ethics of

sustainability are compatible with the ethics of care. This is also richly suggestive of
a neo-materialist discursive ethics, rather than a neo-universalist model, based on
non-unitary subjectivity and on multiple forms of accountability. More specifically,
 Guest Editorial 107

Kneafsey et al. (2008) found these kinds of ethics, subjectivities and accountabilities
broadly circulating in and constitutive of the five alternative food networks they
explored for their Reconnecting Consumers, Producers and Food: Exploring
Alternatives volume. For them, the consumers in these networks were found to be:

. . . knowledgeable, thoughtful and caring on many levels. They are far from the
model of the alienated, economic rationaliser searching out cheap, convenient
food and knowing little of the implications. Rather they are rational on their
own terms, participating in practices that have an emotional, or moral, logic as
well as an economic one. ‘Reconnection’ with the production of their food
has had wide ranging implications for most of these consumers. Involvement
in these schemes went beyond relationships with individuals and, for some
participants, encompassed much broader notions of community, education and
support for a way of life they believed in. Participation in the ‘alternative’ food
sector allowed for and encouraged practices that embraced caring at many
levels.

And, as they conclude about the wider implications and, indeed, politics of this
ethics of care in reconnection,

[p]articipation in ‘alternative’ food schemes might not save the world, at least
not in the short term, but it might help to build the knowledge, and positive
relationships that create the capacity for change . . . [and support] all those who
want to build more equitable, more sustainable, and more closely connected
relationships between consumers and the producers of their food.

Problematising Care as Care Work and Ethical Consumption

As we have argued here, much of the debate within geography about the ethics
of care and responsibility has focused on either care work or on ethical consumption.
Thus feminist geographical approaches have tended to focus on care work in the
context of neoliberalism. Kim England’s paper in this issue builds on these debates
through an analysis of the relationship between care and responsibility and the move
within neoliberalism from state-provided care to familial and individual responsi-
bility, hidden beneath the moniker of ‘care-giving’. Others have sought to marry
ethical concerns with collective politics through exploring patterns of ‘alternative’
consumption. For example, and drawing on similar concerns, Barnett et al. (2005;
see also Harrison et al., 2005; Littler, 2009) use ethical consumption in order to
demonstrate that individual shopping choices are also connected to broader political
movements aimed at bringing about social change. However, there are several
complications and, indeed, contradictions within both approaches, some of which
are addressed specifically in the set of papers here, but which are also addressed in
the wider literature (e.g. Cox, 2006; Goodman, 2010).
While caring has been recast in significant ways as an economic relationship, it is
thus also a political relationship since care work is both shaped by policy shifts
(as Kim England demonstrates) and bound up with relationships of power.
108 C. McEwan and M. K. Goodman

At a global scale it reveals inequities within global political economies as well as

between individuals. As an engagement between individuals, it is very often a
relationship of power in which both carer and cared-for can exercise power over the
other. As Rosie Cox illustrates in this issue through the example of domestic carers,
this relationship is not always benign. As she puts it in her paper, while ‘[c]aring for
others can be a source of pleasure and fulfilment, and if often very precious, it is also
undervalued, denied, a source of degradation and exploitation’; it is fundamentally a
practice located within global scale hierarchies of gender, class and ethnicity. Care
can thus very much be a problematic ‘performance’ for those who need it, who give
it and for those who arrange care for others.
Global inequities in relationships of power also mean that there are still ‘ethical’
risks associated with political movements based in ethical consumption and caring at
a distance. Ethical and fair trade rely on discourses of ‘self’ and ‘other’—the ‘haves’
(Northern consumers) and the ‘have nots’ (Southern producers). On the one hand,
critics claim that by buying ethical products affluent Northern consumers are able to
‘immerse themselves in a foreign world of fantasy, where workers are content and the
earth is clean’ (Dolan, 2005, p. 369; see also Freidberg, 2003). On the other hand, the
South is imagined as steeped in backwardness, corruption and economic chaos, and
in dire need of salvation by Northern benevolence. The ‘Third World’ worker is
reconstituted as an object of Northern consumers’ duty and obligation. Thus, desire
for ethical action in the North is not always triggered by a sense of commonality,
affinity or solidarity but by images of downtrodden—and now terribly ‘sexed up’
(e.g. Varul, 2008)—Southern workers that reinforce a sense of cultural difference
(Lyon, 2006). Progressive initiatives that can make a tangible difference in the South
still fortify centuries-old self/other distinctions by reminding consumers in the North
of their post-colonial and angst-ridden ethical obligations to the poverty-riddled
South. They are also shaped by Northern definitions of what is ‘fair’ and ‘ethical’
while often excluding ‘local’ understandings of social organisation and ethics
(McEwan, 2009). There is thus still potential for further unpacking by geographers
of the wider ethics of ‘ethical’ and ‘fair’ consumption patterns and the political
economies of who is included and who is left out on both the production and
consumption ends of ethical consumption networks (Goodman, 2010).
Of course, the idea that consumption is an appropriate medium through which to
express political practices and, now, ‘citizenship’ (e.g. Barnett et al., 2010;
Clarke, 2008; Johnston, 2008) is open to question. In particular, it is rarely
recognised that acting civilly through (ethical) consumption is a particularly ‘private’
form of citizenship that one has to pay for the right to experience and that the
connections of citizen-consumer are not all that new—albeit in specifically ‘imperial’
forms (e.g. Domash, 2006; Trentmann, 2007). Thus, the scope of political activism
can be very much limited to those who have the resources, knowledge and status to
exercise their consumption choice (Dolan, 2005, p. 383; Guthman, 2003); indeed, for
some, an ‘ethical’ choice may be how best to feed a family on a limited budget
(Howard & Willmott, 2001, p. 3). Thus, the ability to pursue an ethical agenda is
conditioned by a range of social factors (race, ethnicity, class, gender, and so on);
in the care work of ethical consumption, geographical and political economic context
still very much matter, with, as several critics argue, ‘market triumphalism’ at the
heart of many of the ethical values expressed in contemporary consumption-scapes
 Guest Editorial 109

(Appadurai, 1997; Goodman, 2004; Littler, 2009). Furthermore, there are some very
important questions about whether global inequalities and moral injustices can even
be rectified through the market (Blowfield, 1999), or whether this simply works
towards a ‘kinder, gentler’ (Dolan, 2005, p. 383) ‘counter-hegemonic’ (Evans, 2000)
globalisation. As Popke’s recent review (2006; see also Popke, 2003, 2009) highlights,
the ‘moral geographies of caringscapes’ and those of caring-at-a-distance in the
‘consumption-scape’ are clearly just as socially-constructed and -constituted as they
are (often) economically inscribed.
Furthermore, it is important not to construct consumption-scapes as the new and
singular places and spaces of ethics, responsibility and care. In particular, privileging
consumption and the continuing ‘label-ization’ of its politics as the key ethical arena
can lead to a neglect of other important modes of ethical action, such as political
protest (e.g. Guthman, 2007). As Miele and Evans argue in this issue, the
consumption of food gives rise to a host of different ethical questions, as well as
spaces of ethical action. In the case of foods of animal origin, aesthetic and ethical
considerations are often tacitly interwoven, yet their relationship is seldom
questioned. The disassociation of food from animal bodies raises ethical issues
since this divorces consumption practices from animal welfare. Thus, Miele and
Evans demonstrate the need for greater engagement with the complexities and con-
tradictions of locating the ethics of animal foods within the everyday logics and the
morality of mundane practices of shopping, preparing a meal and eating.
Rosie Cox’s paper also points to the fact that care works differently with respect to
food versus labour/caring work. It might be argued, for example, that care in food is
easier to ‘see’ and ‘appreciate’ given that it is transmitted not only through the
relations of care set up by the alternative food networks (‘seeing’ the cow, farmer,
and landscape that the food is coming from), but it is tied to something very material
and embodied in this food, which then is incorporated (in multiple senses) into one’s
consuming body. Thus the materialities of care in action, as very often embedded in
‘alternative’ foods (e.g. Kneafsey et al., 2008), are easy to see and thus easier to
appreciate. In contrast, caring labour is often harder to ‘see’ and is perhaps more
intangible; it is less material and more difficult (for some) to appreciate, and thus
easier to denigrate, ignore and undervalue. It is perhaps easier to appreciate the care
going into food on grounds of taste, healthiness, quality, animal welfare and so on,
as opposed to the more invisible care relations of someone hired to take care of
children.
At their most broad, the papers in this special issue highlight the fact that care is
fundamentally geographical in its production, development, reception and, now,
consumption. It is about ‘feeling’ as much as ‘doing’, it is about ‘doing to’ as much as
‘feelings from’ and the authors here point to how entangled and complicated these
issues and instances of the multiple practices and expressions of care can be. Care
connects diverse communities, such as feminists, environmentalists, pacifists, anti-
racists, and it is best understood as a search for an ethos, rather than a universal
ethics. As Braidotti (2006) argues, care is bound up with a postmodern humanism
that emphasises the interdependence of self and others (including non-human
others), acknowledges contingency and values responsibility. Understanding care
and its relationalities is about exploring its complex connections to responsibility,
ethics and feelings, its political and cultural economies and materialities, and the
110 C. McEwan and M. K. Goodman

ways in which it is lived as lacking for many and/or abundant for others. And, in
an increasingly unsettled and continuingly unequal world, it is the politics of care
that matter, and matter in crucial and critical ways for many. By building on these
complexities of care and, specifically, its politicised spatialities, the papers in this
themed section work to push us to think about the ways of considering, building and
enacting more carefull spaces, places and worlds.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the participation of all the sessions’
participants at the AAG conference, the fortitude of the authors, the support of the
journal’s editors (Jake Rambo and Andrew Light) and, finally, the encouraging yet
critical comments of the papers’ reviewers.

References
Appadurai, A. (1997) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press).
Barnett, C. (2005) Ways of relating: hospitality and the acknowledgement of otherness, Progress in Human
Geography, 29, pp. 5–21.
Barnett, C., Cloke, P., Clarke, N. & Malpass, A. (2005) Consuming ethics: articulating the subjects and
spaces of ethical consumption, Antipode, 37, pp. 23–45.
Barnett, C., Cloke, P., Clarke, N. & Malpass, A. (2010) Globalizing Responsibility: The Political
Rationalities of Ethical Consumption (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).
Barnett, C. & Land, D. (2007) Geographies of generosity: beyond the ‘moral turn’, Geoforum, 38,
pp. 1065–1075.
Blowfield, M. (1999) Ethical trade: a review of developments and issues, Third World Quarterly, 24,
pp. 753–770.
Braidotti, R. (2006) Transpositions (Cambridge: Polity).
Castree, N., Coe, N., Ward, K. & Samers, M. (2004) Spaces of Work: Global Capitalism and Geographies
of Labour (London: Sage).
Clarke, N. (2008) From ethical consumerism to political consumption, Geography Compass, 2(6),
pp. 1870–1884.
Cook, I., Evans, J., Griffiths, H., Morris, R. & Wrathmell, S. (2007) ‘It’s more than just what it is’:
defetishizing commodities, changing pedagogies, situating geographies, Geoforum, 38,
pp. 1113–1126.
Corbridge, S. (1993) Marxisms, modernities and moralities: development praxis and the claims of distant
strangers, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11, pp. 449–472.
Corbridge, S. (1994) Post-Marxism and post-colonialism: the needs and rights of distant strangers,
in: D. Booth (Ed.) Rethinking Social Development: Theory, Research and Practice, pp. 90–117
(Harlow: Longman).
Corbridge, S. (1998) Development ethics: distance, difference, plausibility, Ethics, Place and Environment,
1, pp. 35–53.
Cox, R. (2006) The Servant Problem: Paid Domestic Work in a Global Economy (London: I.B. Tauris).
Cravey, A.J. (2005) Desire, work and transnational identity, Ethnography, 6(3), pp. 357–383.
Dolan, C.S. (2005) Field of obligation. Rooting ethical sourcing in Kenyan horticulture, Journal of
Consumer Culture, 5(3), pp. 365–389.
Domash, M. (2006) American Commodities in an Age of Empire (London: Routledge).
Ehrenreich, B. & Hochschild, A. R. (2003) Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New
Economy (New York: Metropolitan Books).
 Guest Editorial 111

Evans, P. (2000) Fighting marginalization with transnational networks: counter-hegemonic globalization,

Contemporary Sociology, 29(1), pp. 230–241.
Freidberg, S. (2003) Cleaning up down south: supermarkets, ethical trade and African horticulture, Social
and Cultural Geography, 4(1), pp. 27–43.
Goodman, M. (2004) Reading Fair Trade: political ecological imaginary and the moral economy of Fair
Trade foods, Political Geography, 23(7), pp. 891–915.
Goodman, M. (2008) ‘Did Ronald McDonald also tend to scare you as a child?’: working to emplace
consumption, commodities, and citizen-students in a large classroom setting, Journal of Geography
in Higher Education, 32(3), pp. 365–386.
Goodman, M. (2010) The mirror of consumption: celebritization, developmental consumption and the
shifting cultural politics of fair trade, Geoforum, 41, pp. 104–116.
Guthman, J. (2003) Fast food/organic food: reflexive tastes and the making of ‘yuppie chow’, Social and
Cultural Geography, 4(1), pp. 45–58.
Guthman, J. (2007) The polyanyian way?: voluntary food labels and neoliberal governance, Antipode, 39,
pp. 456–478.
Harrison, R., Newholm, T. & Shaw, D. (Eds) (2005) The Ethical Consumer (London: Sage).
Held, V. (2006) The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political and Global (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Howard, M. & Willmott, M. (2001) Ethical consumption in the twenty-first century, in: T. Bentley &
D. Stedman Jones (Eds) The Moral Universe, pp. 1–8 (London: Demos).
Jackson, P., Ward, N. & Russell, P. (2009) Moral economies of food and geographies of responsibility,
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 34(1), pp. 12–24.
Johnston, J. (2008) The citizen–consumer hybrid: ideological tensions and the case of whole foods market,
Theory and Society, 37, pp. 229–270.
Kneafsey, M., Holloway, L., Cox, R., Dowler, E., Venn, L. & Tuomainen, H. (2008) Reconnecting
Consumers, Producers and Food: Exploring Alternatives (Oxford: Berg).
Lawson, V. (2007) Geographies of care and responsibility, Presidential Address, Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, 97, pp. 1–11.
Lee, R. & Smith, D. (Eds) (2004) Geographies and Moralities: International Perspectives on Development,
Justice and Place (London: Blackwell).
Littler, J. (2009) Radical Consumption (Maidenhead: Open University Press).
Lorimer, J. (2007) Nonhuman charisma, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24(5),
pp. 911–932.
Lyon, S. (2006) Evaluating fair trade consumption: politics, defetishization and producer participation,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(5), pp. 452–464.
Massey, D. (2004) Geographies of responsibility, Geografiska Annaler, 86B, pp. 5–18.
McEwan, C. (2009) Postcolonialism and Development (London: Routledge).
McKie, L., Gregory, S. & Bowlby, S. (2002) Shadow times: the temporal and spatial frameworks and
experiences of caring and working, Sociology, 36(4), pp. 897–924.
Miller, D. (2001) The Dialectics of Shopping (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press).
Parry, J., Taylor, R., Pettinger, L. & Glucksmann, M. (2005) Confronting the challenges of work today:
new horizons and perspectives, The Sociological Review, 53(2), pp. 1–18.
Popke, E. (2003) Poststructuralist ethics: subjectivity, responsibility and the space of community, Progress
in Human Geography, 27(3), pp. 298–316.
Popke, J. (2006) Geography and ethics: everyday mediations through care and consumption, Progress in
Human Geography, 30(4), pp. 504–512.
Popke, J. (2009) Geography and ethics: non-representational encounters, collective responsibility and
economic difference, Progress in Human Geography, 33(1), pp. 81–90.
Silk, J. (1998) Caring at a distance, Ethics, Place and Environment, 1, pp. 165–182.
Smith, D. (1998) How far should we care? On the spatial scope of beneficence, Progress in Human
Geography, 22, pp. 15–38.
Smith, D. (2000) Moral Geographies: Ethics in a World of Difference (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press).
Smith, D. (2002) Responsibility to distant others, in: V. Desai & R. Potter (Eds) The Companion to
Development Studies, pp. 131–134 (London: Arnold).
Smith, S. (2005) States, markets and an ethic of care, Political Geography, 24, pp. 1–20.
112 C. McEwan and M. K. Goodman

Staeheli, L. & Brown, M. (2003) Where has welfare gone? Introductory remarks on geographies of care
and welfare, Environment and Planning A, 35, pp. 771–777.
Trentmann, F. (2007) Before ‘fair trade’: empire, free trade, and the moral economies of food in the
modern world, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25, pp. 1079–1102.
Tronto, J. (1993) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care (London: Routledge).
Varul, M. (2008) Consuming the Campesino, Cultural Studies, 22(5), pp. 654–679.
Whatmore, S. (1997) Dissecting the autonomous self: hybrid cartographies for a relational ethics,
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 15, pp. 37–53.
Young, I. M. (2003) From guilt to solidarity: sweatshops and political responsibility, Dissent, pp. 39–44.