Flat ontology and geography

Abstract

Human geographers are increasingly drawing upon a range of philosophical positions that espouse a more or less flat ontological approach for theorising a range of phenomena. These approaches differentiate between entities in terms of degree rather than kind in order to avoid essentialist, hierarchical or binary modes of thought. To achieve this, they understand the differences between entities as relational. Building upon these perspectives, this article offers a flat ontology that differentiates between things according to their form, which can be identified through a process of de-determination. The concepts of form and de-determination offer a supplement to existing flat ontological approaches by accounting for the difference of entities in terms of where their qualities begin and end as well as their location within a particular set of relations. To demonstrate how the concept of form and de-determination can be applied, I turn to the example of the legal and regulatory debates in the US around the difference between semi-automatic and automatic weapons that have arisen through the development of bump stocks: weapon accessories that allow semi-automatic rifles to mimic fully automatic fire.

What can flat ontology teach the legislator?

“…Not many, I bet, but these days it is difficult to find a paper that does not mention ontology in some way, shape or form (Joronen and Häkli, 2018). In his paper, James Ash (2020) directs our attention to the increasing prominence of different versions of flat ontology in human geography. Discussing approaches such as Actor Network Theory, assemblage theory and theories of affect, he is right to point out that they all emphasize connection rather than distinction between entities, and therefore tend to sit uneasily with traditional analytical thinking (in the sense of dissecting or decomposing entities).…”

Forms of comprehension

“…Comprehend . This is a term that does quite a bit of work in James Ash’s (2020) fascinating paper. Ash uses it, following Garcia, to think about the relations between entities.…”

The forensics of form

“…Out of the 14 rifles fired by the gunman in the shooting, 12 had bump fire stocks attached. The bump stock device replaces the rear stock and pistol grip of an AR-15 or AK style rifle and contains a spring, which allows the recoil from the weapon to push the trigger against the shooter’s finger, enabling faster fire than without the attachment (Ash, 2020). …[bump stocks]…are designed to be affixed to a semiautomatic long gun (most commonly an AR-type rifle or an AK-type rifle) in place of a standard, stationary rifle stock, for the express purpose of allowing ‘rapid fire’ operation of the semiautomatic firearm to which they are affixed…[The bump stock] harnesses the recoil energy of the firearm, providing the primary impetus for automatic fire (GPO, 2018: 13443 cited in Ash, 2020).…”

“……[bump stocks]…are designed to be affixed to a semiautomatic long gun (most commonly an AR-type rifle or an AK-type rifle) in place of a standard, stationary rifle stock, for the express purpose of allowing ‘rapid fire’ operation of the semiautomatic firearm to which they are affixed…[The bump stock] harnesses the recoil energy of the firearm, providing the primary impetus for automatic fire (GPO, 2018: 13443 cited in Ash, 2020).…”

“…James Ash’s (2020) paper on ‘Flat Ontology and Geography’ raises the stakes for ontological considerations in geographical analysis. For Ash, as for other theorists of flat ontology like Marston et al (2005), to address ontology in geographical investigations is not to presuppose an answer or suggest a model before asking a question.…”