Thomas,
When you say the term "nexus" is "an unnecessary label" and that "the old ones"
suffice, to what "old ones" are you referring?
And what labels, do you propose, are *not* filters "imposed upon an observable
set of contingencies"? Isn't that the entirety of language? Or are there some
words and phrases which represent ultimate sacred propositions?
And, seriously, would you argue that "ontic strata" is a more defensible
term on descriptive and instrumental grounds than "nexus"?
The word is a good one for which there are, I think, few comparable
alternatives. And I am far from convinced that its use in social sciences
literatures is in any sense "new" (a quick Google Scholar search seems to
indicate it is not).
Cheers,
Reed
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 05:29:04PM +0100, Thomas Kokkinos-Kennedy wrote:
> Dear Nicholas,
> A complexity is a construct, as is a nexus. Things exist and we
> observe/create them with our observing/creation. One problem I have with
> the term nexus is that it is an unnecessary label - the old ones are OK for
> dialogic purposes, mostly.
>
> A bigger problem that I have with the term nexus is that it indicates an
> 'out-thereness' (LOL) of a thing that is autogenically derived; i.e., a
> filter imposed upon an observable set of contingencies. In other words,
> the source of the nexus is the observer and their ontic strata - be it
> personal, discursive, or critical. The re-purposing of language to
> articulate new ideas and models is fantastic, and I think very necessary -
> I am really dubious that nexus as a term is actually doing that.
>
> Perhaps I also live in the grump allotment.
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
> On 16 January 2016 at 16:54, Nicholas James <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I disagree David,
> > Used well it is excellent. e.g. water, food and energy complexities in
> > today's domestic life. Saw lots of it in the 1980s Michael Watts et al. I
> > also loved imbricate and even better, imbroglio.
> > What was momentarily funny in geography was when there was some
> > entanglement [1990?] between multi-disciplinarity, inter-disciplinarity and
> > then trans-disciplinarity.
> >
> > No need to be a grump allotment prof.!!
> > Nick
> >
> > Nicholas James
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Crouch <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: CRIT-GEOG-FORUM <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:02
> > Subject: Re: nexus thinking
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> > yes, I wondered when someone was going to point this out!
> > of course, it's a joke. on the pretence of a 'clever' twist, I guess it'll
> > make some have some seemingly-'new' publications, whilst adding zero to
> > knowledge. Precarity, Mobility tried the same thing, lots of publications,
> > no more wisdom.
> >
> > give it a break. Avoid the pretence.
> >
> > all good wishes to ordinary scholars
> >
> > David.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > *From:* A forum for critical and radical geographers [
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hillary Shaw [
> > [log in to unmask]]
> > *Sent:* 15 January 2016 16:51
> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
> > *Subject:* Re: nexus thinking
> >
> > I agree. Maybe some 'bandwagon' fashion effect? I've noticed other words
> > gain usage far beyond their original purpose, such as 'pride/proud' (XYZ
> > corporation is proud to sponsor this show) - didn't 'pride' once have
> > slightly negative consequences? Then we have 'hero' - once meant someone
> > who voluntarily and deliberately put themselves in grave danger, for an
> > altruistic purpose - now means anyone who undergoes something unpleasant,
> > whether they wanted to or had any choice in the matter at all. Didn't we
> > have the word 'endurance' for this concept? Househunters will have noticed
> > how almost every property is now 'stunning' - this should mean, they all
> > have low beamed ceilings? Then we have 'customer' where once we had
> > 'patient / student / passenger' - and 'student' where we once had 'pupil'.
> >
> > I guess language just evolves, but the spread of corporate b@llsh@t into
> > areas where it was never seen before, not mentioning any sectors of course
> > but everyone here will have seen examples outside the box going forward,
> > looks like possibly backwards evolution to me.
> >
> > Dr Hillary J. Shaw
> > Director and Senior Research Consultant
> > Shaw Food Solutions
> > Newport
> > Shropshire
> > TF10 8NB
> > *www.fooddeserts.org <http://www.fooddeserts.org>*
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Donald Leffers <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: CRIT-GEOG-FORUM <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:34
> > Subject: nexus thinking
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > I have noticed, in this list and elsewhere, widespread and rather sudden
> > use of the term ‘nexus’. I am intrigued by this. Last year the term was
> > ‘co-production’. As far as I can tell, nexus is being deployed as a
> > framework to conceptualize relationships, connections, and various types of
> > entanglements between things that are not usually considered to be so
> > entangled. This indeed seems very geographical. But I wonder what this term
> > does that existing concepts do not (e.g., hybridity). What is it that
> > changes the status of a word from merely a useful term to a widely deployed
> > framework?
> >
> > Donald Leffers
> >
> > The University of Derby has a published policy regarding email and
> > reserves the right to monitor email traffic. If you believe this was sent
> > to you in error, please select unsubscribe.
> >
> > Unsubscribe and Security information contact: [log in to unmask]
> > For all FOI requests please contact: [log in to unmask]
> > All other Contacts are at http://www.derby.ac.uk/its/contacts/
> >
|