What can flat ontology teach the legislator?

Abstract

<jats:p> This commentary on James Ash’s ‘Flat Ontology and Geography’ makes three points. First, it notes the prominence of different versions of flat ontology in human geography and supports Ash’s attempt to make sense of how flat ontology thinking has impacted human geographical scholarship by working through a politically contested real-world case. Second, by framing Ash’s project as a ‘reality check’, the commentary engages in a critical assessment of what added value flat ontological approaches, Tristan Garcia’s thinking included, may have to offer to our understanding of the non-flat world of value, hierarchy and difference. Third, it locates a problematic gap between flat ontological imaginaries and the phenomenal world of importance and suggests that to avoid academic escapism, we need convincing ways to bridge this gap. To conclude, the commentary joins in Ash’s caution against the overemphasis of connectedness, emergence and contingency in much flat ontological thought. </jats:p>

Form and the politics of world

“…In a different manner, Häkli (2020) suggests the account of world that I draw from Garcia is too abstract and McCormack (2020) argues it lacks affect. However, I would like to push back against this a little and state that while an account of world might appear to be abstract, it actually orientates human geographical analysis towards the concrete and sensual universe because any entity is partly defined in relation to a world that is so flat, empty and formal.…”

“…Third, Häkli (2020) and McCormack (2020) worry that de-determination, as a formal account of trying to ascertain what a thing is, creates issues when thinking about the 'wider' politics that any entity is involved in. For McCormack, this is an issue because he believes that 'I don't think the politics (legal or otherwise) of bump stocks can be reduced to anything.…”