This dialogue begins with the question of ‘contraction’ and explores how this embodied concept may help expand our thinking on reproductive geographies. Following our interlocutors’ lead, we think with (and against) Jane Bennett and her work on dilation here. We go on to think about these contractions in relation to various ‘contracts’ – not least those forged between researcher and participant. Here we delve into questions of what a ‘non-participatory action research’ contract might look like. We then conclude by taking seriously the following question: why is there still a prevailing whiteness in reproductive geographies?
MountzA (2021) Bodies, borders, babies: birthing in liminal spaces. Dialogues in Human Geography. DOI: 10.1177/20438206211020238.
12.
MountzAHyndmanJ (2006) Feminist approaches to the global intimate. Women’s Studies Quarterly34(1&2): 446–463.
13.
NewhouseL (2015) More than mere survival: violence, humanitarian governance, and practical material politics in a Kenyan refugee camp. Environment and Planning A47(11): 2292–2307.
14.
NietzscheF (2000 [1872]) The Birth of Tragedy (Smith D, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
Plato (1973) Theaetetus (Translated with notes by John McDowell). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
PrattGJohnstonC (2021) Travelling intimacies, translation and betrayal in a creative geography. Cultural Geographies. DOI: 10.1177/1474474021993416.
17.
RamadanA (2013) Spatialising the refugee camp. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers38(1): 65–77.
18.
SimpsonA (2014) Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
19.
WrightS (2018) When dialogue means refusal. Dialogues in Human Geography8(2): 128–132.
