This interview with Dr. Jennifer L. Rice, Professor of Geography at the University of Georgia, and a faculty affiliate at the Institute for Women’s Studies and the Center for Integrative Conservation Research at the University of Georgia, was conducted on Dec. 13, 2023, by Jack Roosevelt Rongstad, MS Student, Urban Studies Programs, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM).
Dr. Rice was the featured speaker at the Urban Studies Programs’ Fall Semester Lecture at UWM. She is a co-editor of Urban Climate Justice: Theory, Praxis, and Resistance (University of Georgia Press, 2023).
Urban Climate Justice: Theory, Praxis, Resistance (2023), is a collection of innovative scholarship that combines urban studies, climate advocacy, and social activism. The book challenges traditional climate discourse and emphasizes the urgent need for climate action. Edited by Jennifer L. Rice, Joshua Long, and Anthony Levenda, the book features contributions from renowned scholars conducting groundbreaking research in their respective fields. During her lecture at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee last fall, I had the privilege of sitting down with Professor Rice to discuss the book.
In this interview, Professor Rice discusses the collaborative spirit and critical perspectives that shape her work. She highlights the importance of including diverse scholarly voices and bridging the academic-activist divide. Professor Rice’s transformative journey from a scholar to a scholar-activist reflects her unwavering commitment to social justice. Her research has progressively shifted towards engaging with and supporting community activists, acknowledging the profound impact of climate change on marginalized communities. The central thesis of her work, and the work of the scholars included in this collection, revolves around the imperative to understand climate change as a social justice issue.
The scholars contributing to this work represent various disciplines and emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of studying climate change. Each chapter explores the social justice implications of climate change, highlighting challenges and potential paths toward a more just world. The contributors shed light on the interplay between climate change, social inequality, and environmental justice through case studies, empirical research, and theoretical frameworks. This collection offers a comprehensive understanding of the intersection between climate change and social justice, challenging prevailing notions and providing actionable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and scholars.
“Urban Climate Justice” is not only an insightful book that anyone interested in the intersection of social justice and the climate crisis should read; it’s also a call to action. A powerful and inspiring work, the book offers a unique perspective on the climate crisis and urges us all to work together to create a more just and sustainable future. In the interview, Professor Rice also shares her thoughts on the potential catalysts for societal change. We further discuss how the climate crisis can be a catalyst for positive change if we use it as an opportunity to rethink our values and priorities. We end with a discussion on the power of collective action and its potential to bring about real change.
– Jack Roosevelt Rongstad
Rongstad:
Well, I have a few questions about academia and stuff, but first, let’s talk about the book. When I got the book, I was nervous. I was expecting it to be disappointing. Usually, when I read books about subjects I’m passionate about, they don’t meet my high standards. For example, books about climate change rarely include enough voices or, in my opinion, need to go further and adequately critique the underlying unjust structures. But this book was different. It was refreshingly comprehensive and thoughtful.
Could you talk about what inspired you to compile this collection of essays?
Rice:
So, okay, good question. Because it came about before the pandemic. It came from the collaboration between me, my co-editor Josh Long, and my other co-editor, Anthony Levenda. We had all been writing about similar things, seeing similar things happen in different cities. And we were aware of this larger research network that was trying to understand the complexities, tensions, trade-offs, and other things about working on climate at the local level.
We wanted to create a volume that brought together scholars who were thinking critically about urban climate action. We wanted people who were evaluating both the pros and cons, the positives and negatives. Not just people who write about urban climate action. There are a lot of people in different disciplines who do that, and it’s all great because they’re doing something. But we wanted people who would evaluate it more fairly, more critically, and more comprehensively. People who could say, “This is good, but there are also these other cascading effects that are negative.”
We focused on critical scholars. All of the scholars in the book are working in the US or the UK, but we tried to get scholars who have worked in different parts of the world. We wanted a range of scholars, from junior to senior. So, it was more than just established people in the field. Several of the authors in the book are much more junior scholars. Two of them are actually graduate students.
Rongstad:
Two of them were written by graduate students?
Rice:
Yeah, we wanted to get their voices out there, too. We didn’t want it to be just the same twelve scholars talking about the same things they always talk about. So that was one of our goals in writing that book.
Rongstad:
Yeah, I totally caught that, and the part of your book about praxis also seemed to cover the three different ways researchers go about their work in the social sciences. By including authors who write and do their studies in different ways, it really made the book feel like it had everything.
Rice:
For sure, I’ll expand on that. Thanks for reminding me of the sections because that’s exactly what we wanted to avoid. We didn’t want to make a book that was only theory. That’s why we said we could have up to four chapters on theory, and then we wanted the rest of the book to be about practice. We told the authors to talk about their real-world work. We wanted to know what they did in the meeting rooms and on the ground.
The final set of essays focuses on resistance. We wanted to talk about what activists are already doing, especially in frontline communities. We told them to talk about whatever they felt comfortable discussing. We wanted to balance academic theory, on-the-ground practice, or praxis, real-world work, and finally, the resistance of activist movements and groups.
Rongstad:
Could you expand on that a little? So, you already said you went to several scholars, but did you start with the idea of dividing the book into three distinct sections?
Rice:
As the lead editor, that was something that I really put upfront in the proposal to the publisher. The second section was initially called method, not praxis, but I wanted it to focus on the community engagement aspect of research.
And then I wanted to push these authors past method. I don’t want to talk about the community meetings they ran; I want them to talk about what really happened and what the outcomes were. Who was involved? How did the power structures play out? So, I had that conception from the beginning.
My career as a scholar has been focused on critique. Critique is essential and valuable, but it can also be exhausting. That’s why I wanted to include different voices and perspectives in the book. For example, Robin Leichenkowrote about her experience serving on New York City’s climate adaptation boards. I wanted to hear what happened in the room, from someone who was actually there.
It was cool to let people have space for that. I said, you can give me some conceptual framework, but I want the real-world application. I wanted all the chapters to focus on the people on the ground doing the work. I wanted to try to make it more accessible, so it’s not just opaque theory, but also what’s happening in the room and what the activists are doing on the ground.
Rongstad:
Your book was really useful for my research. I’m using a critical lens for a few projects and it’s given me a lot of direction on how to structure the research and where it can go.
I noticed the authors have different philosophies and politics, but the essays still came together nicely. Each one complemented the others.
Rice:
I can share more about that. In the editing process for this book, we were heavily involved in working with the authors. We didn’t just accept the chapters as they were. We read them and gave feedback. We even asked the authors to try to tie their work to the core questions of the introduction.
We took a strong editing role, sending the chapters back and having them rewritten. These are our friends, and they’re brilliant, so it wasn’t contentious; the scholarship on the page was excellent. We just wanted them to focus more on certain things.
Rongstad:
That makes sense. I wondered why the authors were all so nice about each other’s essays! I could tell it gelled together and was like, Oh, they’re giving, they’re acknowledging each other, that’s so sweet, they must all be pretty close!
Rice:
Right.
Rongstad:
So, we’re going backward. But can you talk about your trajectory as a scholar?
Rice:
Absolutely. My interest has always revolved around the intersections of cities, nature, and the environment. Geography was an accidental discovery for me. I initially wanted to delve into environmental policy, specifically focusing on cities, and I chose Texas State over UT because of its size. In a slightly random turn of events, a family member contacted an advisor who suggested, “Tell her to check out geography; they explore the intersection of people and the environment.” So, I did just that, I declared my major, earned my Bachelor’s in geography, and pursued my master’s and Ph.D. without a break.
There are advantages and disadvantages to being an advocate for my community. However, over time, as I settled into my faculty position, I began to speak up more for my community. Some of my political beliefs on social justice and inequality influenced this, but even without that, it was hard to ignore the issues. As I progressed in my career, I felt more secure in being an advocate because I had passed the 10-year mark. So, if I was considered a troublemaker, people couldn’t come after me too harshly. I should note that this dynamic is changing in Georgia, but it’s still not as bad as Florida. In general, I found my voice and couldn’t stand by without advocating for my community anymore.
Rongstad:
So, one of the biggest things on my mind is the gap between the academic world and activism. I started college as a sociology major and took a bunch of intro courses that opened my eyes to injustice and color-blind racism. Back then, I was super into activism and organizing and wanted to use my sociology degree to make a real difference in the world.
But when I got further into sociology, it became something else. It was very quantitative and cold. I went to my advisor and told her I felt the studies we were reading felt useless. It seemed like we were measuring things that politicians would either use or ignore, depending on their preferences. I asked her if I was missing something, and she told me I could be an academic or an activist, but I couldn’t be both. That really upset me. It seemed like such a self-defeating thing to do, to draw a line in the sand between academia and activism. But I was lucky enough to find Urban Studies, where I immediately felt I belonged.
That’s a long-winded way to transition to my next question. Can you talk about the divide between academia and activism?
Rice:
I think the academic-activist divide is imposed on many students and disciplines. It’s very conventional and established. There are reasons for it, like you want to avoid an elite class of experts always being deferred to in political debates.
But the traditional divide between being an activist and an academic is unfair. We are experts with theories to understand the processes and complexes at hand.
I think it’s essential to talk about real-world communities embedded in your own community or the communities you’re researching and trying to work with. Especially vulnerable, marginalized, and oppressed communities.
The divide is problematic, but it is sometimes hard to blend the two. The confines of the job require publishing in particular outlets, but you have to be creative and figure out ways to publish your work and serve on local or state boards and committees.
I feel for you, that you were told you can’t do both, but I’m glad you found a place where you can. I know you’re supposed to interview me, but tell me more. Is it just in this program that you feel like you can work with communities and advocate for them on the ground? Like, as you’re doing the research?
Rongstad:
Certainly, urban studies stand apart in their multidisciplinary nature, breaking free from rigid boundaries. This flexibility allows me to incorporate methods from various social sciences and even humanities, adapting to the needs of my research. The focus on cities adds a spatial dimension, providing a grounded perspective. I appreciate not being constrained by narrow definitions of social science, which often emphasize numbers, equations, and a disconnect from political realities. Such rigidities can discourage individuals from engaging in politics and activism.
In my research on the University in the 1960s, I see the beginnings of this divide and the formation of these rigid lines. It seems like they started forming in response to the “out of the ivory tower into the streets” mood of 1968 and the student protests that followed. Do you think these lines are changing nowadays?
Rice:
Well, it depends on the field. I’m in geography, and most of us in human geography consider ourselves critical human geographers. We study inequality and social justice, so our research is naturally political. My field lends itself to more scholar-activist research. But outside of these fields, I wonder if it’s changing. Look at what happened on Capitol Hill with the three university professors who were called to testify about Palestine and Israel. It’s a politically charged world, and academics have to be willing to accept criticism. I’ve been criticized for my advocacy for Linnentown (a Black neighborhood destroyed by urban renewal to build UGA dorms in the 1960s), and the University System of Georgia even disallowed a memorial project I was leading. But I have to shake it off and keep trying to do what I think is right. It’s up to the individual academic to be willing to take on those challenges.
Rongstad:
Yeah, so personally, I think about that all the time. I spend much of my time organizing with groups like the one in Diego Martinez’s essay. And sometimes, it feels like I’m of a split brain. I’m always looking for ways to be in the academy while doing work that feels impactful and concrete.
This leads me to my next question:
What role does the academy play in all of this, how do you work within the system, to fight the system?
Rice:
Those are big questions that get to the heart of the matter. To clarify, your question is, how does the academy reproduce the division between activism and scholarship?
Rongstad:
Yes, I think activists in the group I work with would probably say that the academy is a place where you can shout into the void, a place meant to capture people who are really “against the machine,” and allow them a little reservation where radical concepts, theories, and histories can be taught but only at a distance, allowed unless it leaves the reservation, e.g. explicitly connects to the political world.
Rice:
That’s a huge question. But you know, it’s a lifelong struggle. In academia, we read a lot of theory and jargon to explain processes related to capitalism or settler colonialism. But I find that there are always on-the-ground groups who already understand that. They’re talking about it. Sometimes, they use the same language, but other times, they do not.
I’ve tried to do a thing where I educate myself, read theory, and attempt to understand how to continually evolve my thinking on these structures and institutions that create inequality and oppression. But then I also have to find out what the frontline communities doing the work on the ground focus on, how they’re doing it, and what they’re saying. Because I typically learn more from the people struggling on the ground daily, not in the ivory tower. So I try to balance that, like, okay, I want to read theory, but then I really go to particular communities and groups that I have relationships with, or sometimes don’t even have a relationship with them, because I don’t need to take up their time by talking with me. Still, I follow the work that they do.
I have learned a lot about Amazon and the critiques of the company for what it has done to the Seattle housing market. This information was unrelated to climate change, but I gained it by attending Amazon activist meetings and town halls in Seattle. These meetings were like big rallies held inside a structure such as a church, where people discussed the current rent prices and what needs to be done to address the issue. I prefer to engage directly with communities and offer any resources that could be useful. However, I also try to stay out of the way and avoid exploiting anyone.
Rongstad:
In the past, I’ve noticed that many scholars don’t engage with critical theory meaningfully, which can make research difficult. However, I’ve noticed that this is becoming less of a problem, likely due to the impact of the Black Lives Matter movement. It has inspired people in social sciences to challenge the status quo and engage with critical theory.
Rice:
That’s a great observation. It was a huge mass mobilization. It intersected with a pandemic, so people were already mobilizing. I agree that the 2020 uprising, that mass movement, was critical to drawing scholars out of their offices and say, “Hey, this is the time. If you’re here and you want to really help, it’s time to contribute, time to speak up, time to contribute to the discourse about the problems.”
Rongstad:
Have you come across the book “Ministry of the Future” by Kim Stanley Robinson? Robinson is associated with the DSA and is considered one of the most significant living science fiction authors. The book delves into concepts I found in your work, starting with a heatwave in India leading to a three-day blackout, causing millions of deaths due to the lack of air conditioning.
Rice:
Wow.
Rongstad:
In the book, the crisis finally prompts people to explore alternatives. It’s a hypothetical scenario, but do you believe such a shock is necessary to mobilize people? What would it take for America to profoundly combat climate change? Does it require a disaster of that magnitude, or will people reach that awareness independently?
Rice:
Well, that’s a multifaceted question. Firstly, such crises have already occurred, and people have yet to significantly alter their perspectives. I’ve highlighted a few examples in the book or my talk, but unfortunately, it often takes a crisis to spur action.
If a disaster like the one you mentioned were to happen, it’s an intriguing question, and I’m not entirely confident it would be sufficient. How many individuals, previously unconcerned about climate change, would attribute such an event to it? There might be a disconnect. If you’ve reached 2023 without much concern about climate change, would a powerful hurricane in your state be the awakening moment?
Rongstad:
While I found the book quite comprehensive, was there anything else you wished to include? I particularly appreciated the activist section, especially the essay on love and care – it felt very holistic.
Rice:
Thank you!
Rongstad:
Given the extensive coverage, was there anything left out that you wish could have been included?
Rice:
Let me think. It’s interesting because the trajectory of these projects spans many years. We started around 2019 or 2018, stemming from some organized sessions, and then the idea of putting the book together evolved. I do wish we could have highlighted even small-scale, ephemeral, or targeted examples of things worth replicating. It’s challenging because there are often caveats – they might place undue burdens on communities or address specific issues, potentially creating new problems. But I wish the book could have delved more into positive examples that could be reproduced.
Rongstad:
Like the examples from Oakland or the Zapatistas in Mexico come to my mind.
Rice:
Yes, it would have been great to include those. Unfortunately, my colleagues mostly focused on the downsides. That’s the reality. Yet, examples like those give me hope, and it’s an essential lesson to learn from them.
Link to the book: https://ugapress.org/book/9780820363769/urban-climate-justice/https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/N/bo159872695.html
Interview conducted and transcribed by Jack Roosevelt Rongstad , one of the editors of the e.polis and Graduate Student in the Urban Studies Program at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.