Inconvenience, ambivalence, and abolition: A politics of attachment and detachment in geography

Daniel Cockayne, Derek Ruez

Tutkimustuotos: KeskustelupuheenvuoroScientific

2 Sitaatiot (Scopus)
17 Lataukset (Pure)

Abstrakti

In this commentary, we explore the idea of detachment that we see as central to Anderson's notion of attachment but that nevertheless does not take centre stage in the paper. We situate detachment not as attachment's antithesis, opposite, or negative, but as its structural condition and as irretrievably interwoven with attachment. Through Berlant's recent writing, we foreground the notion of ambivalence as a way to think about the complexity of attachment–detachment and to foreground politics and differences in these processes. Then, we draw on abolitionist writers like Gilmore and Lewis to highlight the complicated intersection of structural and affective attachment and to consider the possible intellectual and political stakes of pursuing a geography of attachment.

AlkuperäiskieliEnglanti
Sivut423-427
JulkaisuDIALOGUES IN HUMAN GEOGRAPHY
Vuosikerta13
Numero3
Varhainen verkossa julkaisun päivämäärä18 tammik. 2023
DOI - pysyväislinkit
TilaJulkaistu - 2023
OKM-julkaisutyyppiB1 Kirjoitus tieteellisessä aikakausilehdessä

!!ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development

Sormenjälki

Sukella tutkimusaiheisiin 'Inconvenience, ambivalence, and abolition: A politics of attachment and detachment in geography'. Ne muodostavat yhdessä ainutlaatuisen sormenjäljen.

Siteeraa tätä