Soumitri,
I wrote something about sustainability in relation to the material culture of religions in the Himalayas as a result of a very interesting research project I had the privilege of being involved in while at the New School. The paper tries to be frank about my ignorance of the context I was writing about by taking the opportunity to focus instead on running the kinds of critiques you are mentioning: a strategy of clearing the space for, rather than speaking of. The paper was deservedly refused publication by the journal I was asked to write for, which specializes on geopolitics and anthropology of the wider Himalayan region. But perhaps it is of interest:
https://www.academia.edu/10994867/Sustainability_as_an_Everyday_Material_Religious_Practice_Learning_more_Symmetrically_with_the_Himalayas_
Cameron
>> Should I take the American wilderness movement, combine it with Datchevsky and call out the western sustainability movement as shallow and utterly utilitarian? Or should I call out the elitism inherent in the wilderness movement, and in deep ecology, that has no space for the poor, marginalised, the refugee and the displaced people of the planet - by aligning myself with the greens, the bioethicists and the development theorists? Or should I simply stay within the discourse of sustainability within the profession of design and account for the pretty objects (Tree Hugger) and pretty buildings (ArchDaily), with an enumeration of the ecodesigned consumer products for consumption in volumes across the globe?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|