On the Political

International audienceThis article explores the idea of political subjectivity in Hannah Arendt and Jacques Rancière, both of whom I see as thinkers of ruptural and inaugurative politics with a particularly spatial conceptualisation of politics. I start by distinguishing between three strands of thinking about the nature of political subjectification, and I situate Arendt and Rancière's conceptualisations in relation to these. After an examination of their idea of political subjectivity, I offer an interpretation of the movement of sans papiers as it relates to political subjectification. This interpretation also brings out the similarities and differences between Arendt's and Rancière's understanding of politics

Section: Politics For Antagonistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Politics For Antagonistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beginners and equals: political subjectivity in Arendt and Rancière

Dikeç

2012

“…Such collaborations, as critical political theorists and urban geographers have shown, are characterized by consensual policy‐making “in which the stakeholders … are known in advance and where disruption or dissent is reduced to debates over the institutional modalities of governing, the accountancy calculus of risk, and the technologies of expert administration or management” (Swyngedouw, , p. 240). The literature on post‐politics and post‐democracy is rich and varied (Badiou, ; Crouch, , ; Dean, ; Diken, ; Marquand, ; Mouffe, ; Rancière, , , ; Swyngedouw, , , ; Wilson & Swyngedouw, ) and contributors to it tend to agree that underpinning the trends observed are organisational structures and governance arrangements associated with capitalism, neoliberalism and the market economy. Some consider post‐politics to be a symptom of Modernity (Diken & Bagge Laustsen, ).…”

Section: The Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Taskforce (Thpbet)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The post‐politics of plant biosecurity: The British Government's response to ash dieback in 2012

Tsouvalis

2018

This paper analyses the post-political nature of the discourse of plant biosecurity in the context of the response to ash dieback in Britain. Ash dieback or Chalara is a tree disease usually fatal to ash trees. It is caused by a fungal pathogen from Asia and was first discovered in Britain in 2012 at a nursery in Buckinghamshire, England, where it had arrived in a consignment of infected tree saplings imported from the Netherlands. Global trade and the rising number of epidemics affecting plants, animals and humans worldwide are connected. Global trade accelerates the pace of disease emergence and the spread of pathogens and pests. However, to date it has remained conspicuous by its absence from discussions of plant biosecurity. This paper investigates the reasons for this. It presents findings from an analysis of the European Union's (EU) plant health regime, in place to control the circulation and spread of plant pests and diseases in the EU, to demonstrate the key role played by plant biosecurity in neoliberalism. Additionally, results from a qualitative study of the British Government's Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Expert Taskforce convened in the wake of ash dieback are presented to illustrate how the risk-based approach to biosecurity and expert-led governance contribute to rendering the role of global trade in epidemics apolitical. The paper builds on and broadens critiques advanced by geographers and Science and Technology Studies scholars of biosecurity thinking and practice and brings them into correspondence with literatures on post-politics. It concludes that there is not only a need for the development of new approaches to biosecurity, as suggested in the geographical literature, but also for the construction of a new politics of biosecurity. K E Y W O R D S ash dieback, biosecurity, Britain, neoliberalism, post-politics | INTRODUCTIONWe [the British Government] need to be better prepared in understanding the risks of what pests and diseases are likely to arrive, when, where and how they might invade, how severe the impact is likely to be and what options are available for interception, eradication, mitigation or adaptation. (Defra, 2013, p. 2) This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG).

“…The right to place 12 is a modern expression of human sociality with deep roots in the vigilant egalitarian cultural practices of our ancestors. Geo‐history is agonistic (Mouffe 2005), consisting of ‘struggles for power over the entry of entities and events into space and time’ (Hägerstrand 1986, 43; our translation). How such struggles contingently play out facilitates or hinders sustainability by shaping people’s connections to the land and their place.…”

Section: Participation In Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Participation in evolution and sustainability

Clark¹,

Clark

2012

The modern synthesis of genetics with evolution slanted our understanding of evolution and of ourselves by rejecting Darwin’s view of animals as participating in their own evolution. Defining evolution in terms of genetics, the modern synthesis indulges excessive individualism and distorted self‐images as self‐made. At the same time, such gene‐centred thought, evoking images of master molecules making us who we are, hollows out volition and so also moral concerns and political alternatives. Drawing on the geography of thought, we argue that stubbornly tacit preformationist biological thought reflects and anchors social processes that limit adaptability in reaching toward sustainable living. We appeal for leveraging sustainability efforts by affirming in theory and in the public square an open image of human nature that recognises the participation of our ancestors in becoming who we are, obliging people to make their history together. Achieving the collective self‐regulation sustainability requires may depend on correcting slanted reasoning about ourselves.