Search results

Open Access (free)
Tuur Driesser

. Maps as objects 225 From critical to object-oriented cartography The critical cartography which arose in the 1990s (Crampton and Krygier, 2006) approach maps as texts (Harley, 1989), sign systems (Wood, 1993) and social constructions (Crampton, 2001). In response to the dominance of the communication model, which thought of maps purely as neutral tools to convey geographical information, critical cartography sought to demonstrate how these representations were in fact bound up with politics of power and knowledge. Thus, building on Foucault and Derrida (Harley, 1989

in Time for mapping
Clive Barnett

negotiating between overly socialised views of the social (for example, in cultural theories of the social construction of subjectivity or non-representational theories of affective atmospheres) and under-socialised views of the individual (for example, in economics or psychology). Big-P Pragmatism’s value lies in part in its emphasis on the social dimensions of knowledge, on how problems arise and resolutions are arrived at through practices of collective interaction. But it is also a tradition of thought that affirms the irreducible pluralism of human life. And this

in The power of pragmatism
The case for practice theory
Matthew Hanchard

Situationist 156 Stitching memories movements (Rasmussen, 2004); and second, through theoretical critique of the power relations between map content and spatial knowledge(s). On the latter, key moments include Harley and Woodward’s History of Cartography (Andrews, 2001) – a massively ambitious (and on-going) project, intended to redress subaltern dynamics within map representation (Harley, 1987). In drawing on Harley’s combination of post-structuralism, semiotics and social constructionism, the project sought to critique knowledge-politics in map representation (1988a

in Time for mapping
Alireza F. Farahani and Azadeh Hadizadeh Esfahani

, 1999 ). Here, attention to knowledge and learning in the critical (post-)development literature has focused on the social construction of (power-)knowledge that highlights the role of discourse as an apparatus of control. Post-development literature tends towards a focus on hegemonic and enduring conceptions of knowledge in development that ignore agency and romanticise local and indigenous knowledge and social movements ( Escobar, 2008 ; Jakimow, 2008 ; Radcliffe, 2005 ). Third, there has been a re-engagement with critical pedagogy for cultivating emancipatory

in The power of pragmatism
A pragmatist notion of critique as mediation 
Klaus Geiselhart

less often a self-portrayal. Definitions vary. Finkelde (2013) sees the roots of poststructuralism in structural linguistics and anthropology, while Harrison (2006) defines poststructuralism in distinction to analytical philosophy. In contrast to logical positivism, whereby statements need to be empirically verifiable in order to be scientific, poststructuralism emphasises contexts, conditions of possibility, historicity and the textuality of truth. In this respect, poststructuralism focuses on the production of meaning and the ‘social construction’ of reality

in The power of pragmatism
Louise Amoore

me to the second central claim made by the new IPE scholars – that knowledge is historically ‘made’ in the context of social power relations. For orthodox IPE scholars, as I have argued, it is important that IPE generates reliable and scientific knowledge that is ‘testable against external evidence’ (Krasner, 1996: 108). The new IPE rejects this positivist epistemology in favour of a historicism that embodies ‘a willingness to investigate and try to explain the contingent historical social construction of agents or actors, which, at other times, may be treated as

in Globalisation contested