Memories: Mud

  • Sonja Boon
  • Lesley Butler
  • Daze Jefferies


This chapter considers the conceptual potential of mud. A substance located at the midway point between the solid and the liquid, mud is a useful metaphor that has been central to how we have imagined human social relations. But mud is also an agentic substance, capable of articulating its own meanings. In its continual shifting, it can enable a transcorporeal politics of belonging, a model for living together in an ever-eroding, ever-shifting, constantly resurfacing world.


Mud Transcorporeality Stickiness Resurfacing Vibrant matter 


  1. Ahmed, Sara. 2004. The cultural politics of emotion. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Alaimo, Stacy. 2008. Trans-corporeal feminisms and the ethical space of nature. In Material feminisms, ed. Stacy Alaimo and Susan Hekman, 237–264. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anzaldúa, Gloria. 2012. Borderlands/la frontera: The new mestiza. 4th ed. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, Jane. 2010. Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berlant, Lauren, ed. 2000. Intimacy. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carter, Paul. 2008. Dark writing: Geography, performance, design. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cixous, Hélène. 1998. Stigmata: Escaping texts. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Douglas, Mary. 1969. Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. 2nd ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Gordon, Avery. 1997. Ghostly matters: Haunting and the sociological imagination. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Grosz, Elizabeth A. 1994. Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Howitt, Richie. 2001. Frontiers, borders, edges: Liminal challenges to the hegemony of exclusion. Australian Geographical Studies 39 (2): 233–245. Scholar
  12. Kristeva, Julia. 1982. Powers of horror: An essay on abjection. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. McKenzie, Kirsten. 2005. Scandal in the colonies: Sydney and Cape Town, 1820–1850. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  14. mud, n.1. OED Online. 2017, March. Oxford University Press. Accessed 6 June 2017.
  15. Neimanis, Astrida. 2012. Hydrofeminism: Or, on becoming a body of water. In Undutiful daughters: New directions in feminist thought and practice, ed. Henriette Gunkel, Chrysanthi Nigianni, and Fanny Soderback, 96–115. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2013. Feminist subjectivity, watered. Feminist Review 103: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2017. Bodies of water: Posthuman feminist phenomenology. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Rogoff, Irit. 2000. Terra infirma: Geography’s visual culture. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Tuana, Nancy. 2008. Viscous porosity: Witnessing Katrina. In Material feminisms, ed. Stacy Alaimo and Susan Hekman, 188–213. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Tuck, Eve, and C. Ree. 2013. A glossary of haunting. In Handbook of autoethnography, ed. Stacey Holman Jones, Tony E. Adams, and Carolyn Ellis, 639–658. Walnut Grove: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonja Boon
    • 1
  • Lesley Butler
    • 1
  • Daze Jefferies
    • 1
  1. 1.Memorial University of NewfoundlandSt John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations