By
·
Love the subtitle: Who will get to speak for everything and how?
Love the subtitle: Who will get to speak for everything and how?
Tags:
that’s what I keep asking, given how badly we govern ourselves when it is just human-oriented interests being represented (could it really be otherwise?) how would we ever bring yet more interests to the table without making things even more contested/clusterfucked?
In my view, a lot of it has to do with the implicit and often unacknowledged narrative that we use to tell our trajectory into, and our place within, the Anthropocene. The particularities of this are too often lost through lenses of “modernity” – actants, acceleration and so on.
I get the gist of the “critical” perspectives, what I’m wondering about is more procedural/functional, what would the concrete (nuts&bolts) practices of governing be? Just think of how hollow notions like “representative” governing figures/persons and “informed” citizens ring now…
I am very wary of precisely these ideas of “procedures” “representing” and so forth. My latest work is focused precisely on these issues; but I fear they are book-length ideas, so perhaps not best put here. The do, however, require us taking a much more careful look at: 1) the right hand side of the political spectrum, and 2) whether the entire political axis touches what matters any longer.
sure, I think we (in general) may well be hitting the limits of the web/blogging as being useful for much more than sharing resources, if you have some longer form works to share at some point via email that would be much appreciated.
Soon I hope! My book is just under consideration now, looking forward to continued conversations going forward.
[…] Reposted from the excellent anthropo.scene blog. […]
Jeremy J Schmidt 
Leave a reply to jeremy schmidt Cancel reply