Print

Print


Hi Simon,
Brilliant comment.
Idealism, e.g. 'bottom-up development' can be fine; other forms like the 'deep green' can be worrying especially in that anti-human (neo-Malthusian) approaches.
I've come more and more towards the Watts, Harvey, and Swyngedow (plus yours and Tim Forsyths's) approaches.
The one thing that I cannot get my head around is their anti local or place or context views. They, especially Harvey, are bothered by the localism fetish. I have a problem with that because it also dismisses the power of individual, household, community, place and so on.
Nick



-----Original Message-----
From: Simon P J Batterbury <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 3:55
Subject: Re: Speculations

I had a look at ‘speculative realism’, which itself seems to embody many different approaches. Hard to understand if you haven’t studied philosophy at all, but I cringed somewhat on reading this remark “All four of the core thinkers within Speculative Realism work to overturn these forms of philosophy which privilege the human being, favouring distinct forms of realism against the dominant forms of idealism in much of contemporary philosophy.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_realism  The four thinkers don’t actually seem to quite agree on the approach.
 
While it still has ‘realism’ in the name, does SR  take us down the Latour route? His actor network theory seems particularly disabling politically, and not very radical at all in terms of its normative stance and assistance to political action on important matters of ethics and rights. Humans seem to be just one actor in a network of connections. Researchers trace them. If SR also embraces this view, how does it help?
 
In order to get critical stuff done in the world – surely we are more important than ‘other’ objects? The bike rider is more important than her/his inner tubes, which cannot affect infrastructure policy themselves. ‘Other’ objects don’t have agency. While I can see that some objects have particular ‘power’ – viruses, guns, SUVs, the weather, etc and it is good to study them (technography, by Paul Richards and his students at Wageningen, is a great approach to that) – it’s the people that have the power to change their effects and use. Especially the weather.
 
Back to idealism, perhaps, and particularly Marx. Or even critical realism, which I rather liked.      
 
However on a weekly basis, it’s what you do with your time that really matters for me, rather than the philosophical approach you find interesting. A different point, but  I am sure this is the case for other readers too. That’s perhaps a reactionary version of ‘critical human geography’ – or – given the cuts facing universities right now – a pragmatic personal strategy to get as much done before many of us lose our jobs (what is happening in the UK – more Depts under threat?) or get sucked into other quotidian things as we age!

S
 
Dr. Simon Batterbury, Director,
Office for Environmental Programs, University of Melbourne, 3010 VIC Australia.
&
Associate Professor,
Dept. of Resource Management and Geography,
Melbourne  School of Land and Environment,
(rm L2.33, 221 Bouverie St) +61 (0)3 8344 9319   Fax +61 (0)3 9349 4218
 
simonpjb@ unimelb.edu.au http://www.simonbatterbury.net

From: Stuart Elden [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, 2 August 2010 7:46 AM
Subject: Speculations Volume I now published
 
The first volume of a new online journal, Speculations, is now available.
 
“Speculations is a journal dedicated to research into speculative realism and post-continental philosophy.