| 000 | 01578nab a2200181 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | OSt | ||
| 005 | 20221029112739.0 | ||
| 007 | cr aa aaaaa | ||
| 008 | 221027b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 100 |
_aJouni Häkli _954167 |
||
| 245 | _aWhat can flat ontology teach the legislator?/ | ||
| 260 |
_bsage, _c2020. |
||
| 300 | _aVol 10, issue 2, 2020 : (370–373 p.). | ||
| 520 | _aThis 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. | ||
| 773 | 0 |
_010527 _916533 _dSage Publications Ltd., 2019 _tDialogues in human geography. _w(OSt)20840795 _x2043-8214 |
|
| 856 | _uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/2043820620940055 | ||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cART |
||
| 999 |
_c13414 _d13414 |
||