The Promise of Non-Representational Theories

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

©CopyrightedMaterial


chapter1

ThePromiseofnon-RepresentationalTheories

BenandersonandPaulharrison

a Dream

ican’thelpbutdreamofthekindofcriticismthatwouldtrynottojudgebuttobring an oeuvre, a book, a sentence, an idea to life; it would light fires, watch grassgrow,listentothewind,andcatchtheseafoaminthebreezeandscatterit.itwouldmultiplynotjudgementsbutsignsofexistence;itwouldsummonthem,dragthemfromtheirsleep.Perhapsitwouldinventthemsometimes–allthebetter.allthebetter.[...]itwouldnotbesovereignordressedinred.itwouldbearthelighteningofpossiblestorms(MichelFoucault1997a,323).

It’s the affirmation which gives the quote its force. The affirmation not just of one thing, one subject, one angle, but of many. And beyond this, an affirmation of life, ofexistenceassuch,asprecarious,asactiveandasunforeseeable.WewillmovetoamoretraditionalmodeofintroductioninamomenthoweverfornowletusstaywithFoucault’sdream.Whatwould‘criticism’havetobetobecapableofall these things, of this affirmation and this potential? It seems to us that it would havetobeitselfmultiple,itselfcomposedoutofmanythings.itwouldhavetoworkouthowtomovedifferently,howtostepfromone topic to thenext,onematter to thenext, and initiate new ways of relating,walk new routes withouttripping,(oratleastnotoften).itwouldhavetotakerisks,inventnewterms,newtones,newobjects.itwoulddrawnewmaps.Perhapsmostimportantly,itwouldhavetocontinuechanging,notsettle inthesatisfactionofa judgmentbutkeepexperimenting.Furtheron in the interviewfromwhich thequoteabovecomes,Foucaultsuggeststhat

What we are suffering from is not a void but inadequatemeans for thinkingabouteverythingthatishappening.Thereisanoverabundanceofthingstobeknown: fundamental, terrible, wonderful, insignificant, and crucial at the same time(1997a,325).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Taking-Place: Non-Representational Theories and Geography 2

it is our view that non-representational theories1 are best approached as aresponsetosuchasituation.ifonesinglethingcanbesaidtocharacterisenon-representationalworkinhumangeographyoverthepast15yearsitistheattemptto invent new ways of addressing fundamental social scientific issues and, at the sametime,displacingmanyoftheseissuesintonewareasandproblems.indoingsowebelievethatithasmultiplied‘signsofexistence’,helpingtointroduceallkindsofnewactors,forcesandentitiesintogeographicaccountsand,atthesametime,aidingintheinventionofnewmodesofwritingandaddressandnewstylesofperforminggeographicaccounts.Whiletheconsistencyoftheseattemptsmaysometimesbehardtosee,anissuewewillconsiderbelow,onabasiclevelwhathas linked this diverse body of work is a sense of affirmation and experimentation. inthiswebelievethattheysharetheethosofFoucault’sdreamand,moreover,itsinvitationtodoandthinkotherwise.

ofcoursenon-representationaltheorieshavenotdonethisalone.inthesecondsectionof this introduction ‘context’we shall offer akindoforiginsmyth fornon-representational theory in geography, locating its emergence in and fromsocialconstructivisminthemid-1990s.howeverbeyondthisundoubtedlypartialaccountthemainaimofthisintroductionistooutlinethreesharedcommitmentsorproblematicswhichwebelievelinktogetherwhatisadiverseandstilldiversifyingbodyofwork.ouraimhereispartlygenealogical,takensequentiallyonecouldread these threeelementsasstagesofanevolutionand ingrowingcomplexity.However the more important (and slightly less artificial) task is that they provide akindofintellectual‘primer’fortherestofthevolume;achartontowhichthereader may map the following chapters and so note their shared concerns andthedifferent routes theyplotacrosscommonproblematics.Thus, following the‘Context’, the first of the three substantive sections discusses ‘Practices’. Here we describehowandwhynon-representationaltheoryhasapracticalandprocessualbasis for its accounts of the social, the subject and the world, one focused on‘backgrounds’, bodies and their performances. in particular this section isconcernedwithshowinghownon-representationalapproacheslocatethemakingof meaning and signification in the ‘manifold of actions and interactions’ rather thaninasupplementarydimensionsuchasthatofdiscourse,ideologyorsymbolicorder.Thenextsection‘lifeandthesocial’ actsasanauto-critiqueandexpansionontheissuesjustgiven,chartingthemovementinnon-representationaltheoryfrompractice based accounts to wider post-humanist accounts of life. Here the influences ofgillesdeleuzeandBrunolatouraremostevident,asweattempttodescribethe

1 Throughoutthisintroductionwewillmakeuseoftheplural‘non-representationaltheories’ torefer todisparateandpotentially looselyconnectedbodiesof thoughtwhichdonotprioritisetheroleofrepresentationintheiraccountsofthesocialandthesubject,and the singular ‘non-representational theory’ to refer to the specific movement within predominantlyBritishsocialandculturalhumangeographywhichweareattemptingtointroducehere.Whileitmaysoundalittlecircular,itshouldgowithoutsayingthatnon-representationaltheoryisitselfdiverse,andcomposedofmultipletheories.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



The Promise of Non-Representational Theories 3

consequencesofnon-representationaltheory’srelational-materialismforthinkingaboutthecompositionandnatureofthesocial.Followingon,‘eventandFuturity’gives the final shared commitment or problematic; here we focus on the ‘non’ of non-representationaltheory,andconsiderexactlyhowtheworkgatheredbythenameisorientatedbyandtoanopen-endedfuture,anorientationthroughwhichitattemptsto‘bearthelighteningofpossiblestorms’.Theintroductioncloseswithabrief reflection and a look at the structure of the volume which follows.

Context

Beginnings are always arbitrary, always imagined. one can always extend thegenealogyandgobackfurther,ormoveoffsidewaysseekingtheskeletoninthecloset,andwewill,tosomeextent.howeverinthissectionoftheintroductionweoutline a specific intellectual problematic as the spur behind non-representational theories. in doing so we keep within the recognised genre requirements of anintroduction to an edited academic book; ‘storying’ the emergence of non-representational theoriesasasuccessor ‘paradigm’.Thereasonsfor thischoiceare largely pedagogic and heuristic; feeling optimistic, we like to imagine thisintroduction’sprimaryaudienceasbeingcomposedofpeoplewhomaynotbesofamiliarwithnon-representationaltheoriesandsotheonusisuponustotell,reductiveasitmaybe,amoreorlessbelievableintellectualnarrative.howevermanyotherbeginningscouldbeplausiblygiven,notleastamongstthem;theon-goingimpactofpost-structuralismonthedisciplineand,inparticular,theavenuesfor thought opened by the translation of the work of deleuze and latour; anemergentconcernfor‘everydaylife’andtheformsofembodiedpracticetherein;aspecific confluence of energies, research interests and institutional setting focused ontheschoolofgeographicalsciencesinBristolintheukthroughoutthe1990s;thegatheringtogetherandelaborationofnon-representationaltheoriesbynigelThrift; the crystallisation of desires to find new ways of engaging space, landscape, the social, the cultural and the political; the influence of the UK’s Research assessment exercise through which, in human geography at least, value wasattachedtosingleauthorpapersandwhichpromotedanacademicclimatewhereinsocalled‘theoretical’interventionscouldbevaluedashighlyasmore‘empirical’studies; a simple generational shift between the new cultural geography andwhatwouldfollow;anevermoreextensiveengagementbygeographerswithothersocialscienceandhumanitiesdisciplines;acynicalcareeristfabulation.aswiththe accountwhich follows, noneof thesebeginnings aredeterminate, howeverall and more probably played a role.We could then classify the emergence ofnon-representational theories in the discipline as an ‘event’, (see below), onewhich, as with all events, arrives somewhat unexpectedly, whose outcome isneverguaranteedinadvance,andwhichiscomposedacrossbutirreducibletoamultiplicityofsites,desires,fears,contingenciesandtendencies,aneventhousedwithintheterm‘non-representationaltheory’.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




still,fornow,let’simagineabeginning.it’s1993:

Whenitwasenthusiasticallypointedoutwithinthememoryofouracademythatraceorgenderornation...weresomanysocialconstructions,inventions,representations,awindowwasopened,aninvitationtobeginthecriticalprojectof analysis and cultural reconstruction was offered. and one still feels itspowereven thoughwhatwasnothingmore thanan invitation,apreamble toinvestigationhas,byandlarge,beenconvertedintoaconclusion–e.g.‘sexisasocialconstruction’,‘raceisasocialconstruction’,‘thenationisaninvention’,andsoforth,thetraditionwasaninvention.Thebrillianceofthepronouncementwasblinding.nobodywasaskingwhat’s thenextstep?Whatdowedowiththisoldinsight?iflifeisconstructed,howcomeitappearssoimmutable?howcomecultureappearssonatural?ifthingscoarseandsubtleareconstructed,thensurelytheycanbereconstructedaswell?(Taussig1993,xvi).

There can be little doubt that throughout the 1980s and the 1990s socialconstructivism was the dominant mode of social and cultural analysis, withinhumangeographyandbeyond.‘socialconstructivism’is,ofcourse,aconvenientshortcut; what is named with this term is less a specific body of work and more a general ontological and epistemological stance, a certain way of delimitingandapprehending‘thesocial’. in thisoriginsmyth, socialconstructivismplaysthe somewhat thankless role of context and matrix for the emergence of non-representational theories.so,what traitsdistinguishsocialconstructivismasanapproachandforthisdubioushonour?

Firstandforemostsocialconstructivismisdistinguishedbyapreoccupationwith representation; specifically, by a focus on the structure of symbolic meaning (or cultural representation). social constructivism looks to how the symbolicorders of the social (or the cultural) realise themselves in the distribution ofmeaning and value, and thereby reinforce, legitimate and facilitate unequaldistributions of goods, opportunities and power. Thus the primary ontologicalobjectforsocialconstructivismisthecollectivesymbolicorderunderstoodtobe,astheanthropologistcliffordgeertzhasit,‘asetofcontrolmechanisms–plans,recipes, rules, instructions (what computer programmers call “programmes”) –forgoverningbehaviour’(1973,44).orasgeographersdavidleyandMarwynSamuels put it five years after Geertz; ‘All social constructions, be they cities or geographic knowledge, reflect the values of a society and an epoch’ (1978,21emphasisadded).Thecollectivesymbolicorderisthatbywhichitsmembersmakesenseoftheworld,withinwhichtheyorganisetheirexperienceandjustifytheiractions.henceJamess.duncan’scharacterisation(afterRaymondWilliams(1981)) of landscape as ‘a signifying system through which a social system iscommunicated,reproduced,experienced,andexplored’(1990,17).2animportant

2 Withtheselectionofthisquoteandthosewhichfollowthereadermaywellthinkthatbysocialconstructivismwemeanthenewculturalgeography;howeverthisbothis

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




pointhere,onewithextensiveepistemological(andmethodological)implications,is theseparationmadebetweenthesymbolicorderandtheparticularsituationswithinwhichthatorderisrealised.asTimingoldwrites;‘startingfromthepremisethatcultureconsistsofacorpusofinter-generationallytransmissibleknowledge,asdistinctfromthewaysinwhichitisputtouseinpracticalcontextsofperceptionandaction,theobjectiveistodiscoverhowthisknowledgeisorganised’(2000,161).epistemologically,thismeansthatthe‘action’isnotinthebodies,habits,practicesoftheindividualorthecollective(andevenlessintheirsurroundings),but rather in the ideas andmeanings citedbyandprojectedonto thosebodies,habits,practicesandbehaviours(andsurroundings).indeedthedecisiveanalyticgestureofsocialconstructivismistomakethelatteranexpressionoftheformer.Tocriticallydepart,forexample,frombeing‘narrowlyfocusedonphysical artifacts (log cabins, fences, and field boundaries)’ and move towards an understanding of‘thesymbolicqualitiesof landscape, thosewhichproduceandsustainsocialmeaning’(cosgroveandJackson1987,96).adeparturethroughwhichtheobjectsofinvestigation–landscape,cityspace,place–becomeapprehendedas‘texts’,where‘the text isseen in termsof theself-realisationorcontestationof [ideas,ideologiesand]identities,understoodaspartoftheimpulsetotheself-realisationofthegroup,classornation’(clark2005,17).

Tosumup,socialconstructivism’sinitialimpetusanditsconsiderablecriticalpurchaseinthe1980sand1990slay,inhumangeographyatleast,intwolinkedinsights. First, in the recognition of the arbitrary nature of symbolic orders, inrecognisingthefactthattheyare‘invented’andnot‘natural’.second,intheemphasisplaced on the plural and contested (or at least contestable) nature of symbolicordersandthesitesatwhichthisoccurred.Theimportanceoftheseinsightsandthe work which followed them is difficult to underestimate; contemporary Human geographicinvestigationisunthinkablewithoutthem.andso,whilewewouldcharacterisetheemergenceofnon-representationaltheoryasan‘event’,wewouldalsostressthatnon-representationaltheoryhasadebtto, inparticular, thenewculturalgeography,onethathastoacertainextentgoneunacknowledged.There

andisnotthecase.ontheonehand,wedoclearlyimplicatethenewculturalgeographywithinthebroadoutlineofthesocialconstructivismofthe1980sand1990s;itseemstousthatdenialstothecontraryitwasandisweddedto,andindeedgainsmuchofitsimpetusand insight from, social constructivist assertions about the nature of meaning and itsrelationshiptotheworld,tomatterandtoevents(seebelow).however,ontheotherhandandlikenon-representationaltheories,thenewculturalgeographywasandisaninternallydiverseanddynamicmovementwhich,oncloserexamination,oftenresistsandconfoundssimplisticreduction.indeedonemay,forexample, traceclearcontinuitiesbetweennon-representationaltheoryandtheethosandconcernsofnewculturalgeography,particularinworkonlandscape(seelorimer2006,Rose2002andWylie2002),performance(crang1994), andmobilities (Merriman 2007;cresswell 2003).Moreover,webelieve that thecriticalinterventionsmadebythoseinvolvedinthesemovementsareofongoingimportanceandvalue,notleastthefoundingcritiqueofutilitarianismandfunctionalisminsocialandgeographicanalysis(seeforexamplecosgrove1989).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




isnodoubtthatnon-representationaltheoryinheritsanumberofthekeyinsightsofnewculturalgeography;thatrepresentationmatters,thatsocialorderisnotimmutable, and that signification connects to extra-linguistic forces. However, as weshallsee,itinheritsbyrearticulatingtheseinsights,framingthemotherwise.Why?Becausetheinsightandcriticalpurchaseofsocialconstructivismcomesatacost.

Practices

Theworldanditsmeanings;thisdivideisthecost.3ononeside,overthere,theworld, the really real, all ‘things coarse and subtle’, and on the other, in here,thereallymade-up,therepresentationsandsignswhichgivemeaningandvalue.it’s a classic cartesian divide. once established there can be no sense of howmeanings and values may emerge from practices and events in the world, nosenseof theontogenesisofsense,nosenseofhowreal thereallymade-upcanbe. indeed inretrospect itmayseemas though,asulfstrohmayer(1998,106)observed, social constructivism’s and human geography’s preoccupation withrepresentationwassimplya ‘pragmatic’ response to thewider,precedingcrisisofrepresentation.aresponsewhichtookcriticaladvantageof the‘constructed’nature of all representation, but which, due to its own anti-realism, was neverabletomovebeyondthecrisisandaccountforthefactthat‘iflifeisconstructed,how come it appears so immutable?’. An early, arguably defining trait in the identification and emergence of non-representational theory was a different way of framing and responding to this problem. indeed this other framing gives usthe most literal definition of the term ‘non-representational’ and the first way of recognisingnon-representationaltheories; they share an approach to meaning and value as ‘thought-in-action’:

These schools of thought all deny the efficacy of representational models of theworld,whosemainfocusisthe‘internal’,andwhosebasictermsorobjectsaresymbolicrepresentations,andareinsteadcommittedtonon-representationalmodelsoftheworld,inwhichthefocusisonthe‘external’,andinwhichbasictermsandobjectsareforgedinthemanifoldofactionsandinteractions(Thrift1996,6).

Beforeaskingoftheconsequences,itisworthtakingafewmomentstoexplorethisdifferenceabitfurther.

3 non-representationaltheoryisbynomeansuniqueintherecognitionofthiscost;ithasbeendiagnosedinvariousplaces,atvarious timesandinvariouswaysacross thesocialsciencesandhumanities,seeforexampleBennett(2001);connolly(2002);haraway(1991);ingold(2000);latour(1993);law(1993);Massumi(2002b);seigworth(2003);stewart(1996);Taussig(1993).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




‘Themanifoldofactionandinteraction’;whatdoesthismean?onewaytothinkaboutitisasa‘background’.Whilewedonotconsciouslynoticeitwearealwaysinvolvedinandcaughtupwithwholearraysofactivitiesandpractices.ourconsciousreflections, thoughts, and intentions emerge from and move with this background ‘hum’ofon-goingactivity.Moretechnically,wecouldsaythat‘thebackgroundisasetofnonrepresentationalmentalcapacities thatenableall representing to takeplace’andthatconsciousaimsandintentionsform,andhavetheformtheydo,onlyagainstsucha‘backgroundofabilitiesthatarenotintentionalstates’(searle1983,143).youarelate;youwalkquicklyintotheclassroomandsitdown.Whenyouwalked into theclassroomdidyou thinkaboutopening thedoor,ordidyou justopenit?Whenyousatdowndidyouhavetorememberwhataseatlookedlikeandhowtouseone?ofcoursewecanthinkofexampleswherepeopledohavetothinkabout these things (aneurologicalconditionmaypreventobject recognition,onemay hesitate and reflect on opening the door due to being nervous, the chair may be anunfamiliarspring-loadeddesign),howeverthepointisthatmostofthetimeinmostofoureverydaylivesthereisahugeamountwedo,ahugeamountthatweareinvolvedin,thatwedon’tthinkaboutandthat,whenaskedabout,wemaystruggletoexplain.howdidyouknowtocomeintotheroomthroughthedoor?howdidyouknowthatthat was a seat? While such reflections may seem somewhat irrelevant to therealbusinessofsocialandgeographicinvestigation,inmanyrespectsnothingcouldbefurtherfromthecase.ifthinkingisnotquitewhatwethoughtitwas,ifmuch of everyday life is unreflexive and not necessarily amenable to introspection, if,asshallbeclaimedbelow,themeaningofthingscomeslessfromtheirplaceinastructuringsymbolicorderandmorefromtheirenactmentincontingentpracticalcontexts,thenquitewhatwemeanbytermssuchas‘place’,‘thesubject’,‘thesocial’and‘thecultural’,andquitehow‘space’,‘power’and‘resistance’actuallyoperateandtake-place,areallinquestion.Fornow,however,ourquestionbecomeshowarewetothinkofthis‘background’,howarewetocharacteriseitbeyondthesomewhatlimited and limiting definition ‘non-representational mental capacities’, and so gain somepurchasetherein?

insistingonthenon-representationalbasisofthoughtistoinsistthattherootofactionistobeconceivedlessintermsofwillpowerorcognitivedeliberationandmoreviaembodiedandenvironmentalaffordances,dispositionsandhabits.This means that humans are envisioned in constant relations of modification and reciprocitywiththeirenvirons,actionbeingunderstoodnotasaonewaystreetrunningfromtheactortotheactedupon,fromtheactivetothepassiveormindtomatter,butasarelationalphenomenaincessantlyloopingbackandregulatingitself through feedbackphenomena such asproprioception, resistance, balance,rhythmand tone;put simply,all action is interaction (ingold2000, seegibson1979;clark1997;Thrift2008).Whichistosaythatthebodieswhichpopulatenon-representationaltheoryare,forthemostpart,relationalbodies;ecologicalinformandethologicalinapprehension(lorimer,thisvolume;Bissell,thisvolume,simonsen,thisvolume).Withinsuchanunderstandingtheworldisneveran‘outthere’,ameaninglessperceptualmessinneedof(symbolic)organisation,norisitan

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




inertbackdropofbrutethingsprojecteduponbyourhopes,desiresandfears,(butseeWoodward,thisvolume,saldanha,thisvolume).Ratherwearealwaysalready‘caughtupinthefabricoftheworld’(Merleau-Ponty1962,256);theworldisthecontextfrom,withandwithinwhichwhatwecallsubjectsandobjectsemerge,(ibid.,seeforexampleharrison2000,hinchliffe,thisvolume,Mccormack,thisvolume,Wylie,2002,2005,andthisvolume).asingoldwrites:

Foranyanimal,theenvironmentalconditionsofdevelopmentareliabletobeshapedby theactivitiesofpredecessors ...Thesamegoes forhumanbeings.humanchildren,liketheyoungofmanyotherspecies,growupinenvironmentsfurnishedby theworkof previousgenerations, and as theydo so they comeliterally to carry the forms of their dwelling in their bodies – in specific skills anddispositions(2000,186).

Thuswemaygainawidersenseof the‘background’describedabove,onenotlimitedtothe(nodoubtimportant)realmof‘non-represententionalmentalcontent’,butwhichspillsoutintoandacrossthebodyanditsmilieu.indeedtospeakofpracticesistospeakpreciselyofsuch‘transversal’objects,ofarraysofactivitieswhich, like musical refrains, give an order to materials and situations, humanbodiesandbrainsincluded,asactionsundertakenact-backtoshapemusclesandhonesenses.Thisisthe‘anonymous,pre-personallifeofourbodies’which,forthemostpart,‘remainsinvisibletous’(shotter1995,2).

What is being described here is a concern with and attention to emergentprocesses of ontogenesis, how bodies are actualised and individuated throughsetsofdiversepracticalrelations.arecognisableearlyandabidingtraitofnon-representationalworkinthedisciplinewasaconcernforthepractical,embodied‘composition’ of subjectivities (see for example Rose 2002; anderson 2004;harrison 2000; Mccormack 2003; Thrift 1996; Wylie 2002; Paterson 2006;2007).arguably, what distinguished such accounts was their refusal to searchfor extrinsic sources of causality or determination, an out-of-field ‘power’, a symbolic,discursiveorideologicalorderforexample.Ratherthefocusfellontheefficacy and opportunism (or otherwise) of practices and performances. It is from theactive,productive,andcontinualweavingofthemultiplicityofbitsandpiecesthatweemerge:outofthe‘shapesandcontoursofourbodies,therecurrentverbalandbehaviouralpatterns’and‘therecurrentdiagramsofouremotions,attitudesandposturing’(lingis1994,155).

equally,itisfromsuchactive,productiveandcontinualweavingthat‘worlds’emerge. here, and acknowledging the phenomenological inheritance (seeheidegger1962,seealsoThrift, thisvolume;simonsen, thisvolume), theterm‘world’ does not refer to an extant thing but rather the context or backgroundagainst which particular things show up and take on significance: a mobile but more or less stable ensemble of practices, involvements, relations, capacities,tendenciesandaffordances.azoneofstabilisationwithinthe‘manifoldofactionsandinteractions’whichhastheformofaholdingwaveorrecursivepatterning.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




ifthissoundsabstractandobtusewedo,infact,usethetermworldinthissensein everyday life; in, for example, phrases such as ‘the world of business’, or‘the world of radical politics’.asalphonso lingis explains, the term ‘world’describes ‘not simply an experience of our perceived environment’ but, rather,the contexts and fields which are illuminated by our ‘movements of concern’ and whichmake‘themultiplicityofbeingsaboutusanorder,acosmos’(1996,13).inthissense‘worlds’arenotformedinthemindbeforetheyarelivedin,ratherwecometoknowandenactaworldfrominhabitingit,frombecomingattunedtoitsdifferences,positionsandjuxtapositions,fromatrainingofoursenses,dispositionsandexpectationsandfrombeingabletoinitiate,imitateandelaborateskilledlinesofaction.Thuscertainembodiedgesturesandactionsequences,certainturnsofphraseandidiomaticexpressions,certainorganisationsofobjectsinspace,do not‘express’or‘stand-for’certainculturalmeanings,valuesandmodels;theyarenot‘vehiclesforsymbolicelaboration’(ingold2000,283).Rathertheyareenactments;ifthereiselaborationitisconductedandcomposedbyandintheon-goingpracticalmovementsandactions,ofwhichthesymbolicisapart,butonlyapart.4inthissensenon-representationaltheorymaybeunderstoodasradicallyconstructivist,inthat,echoinglatour(1999),itaversthateverythingisreallymade-up,butisnolessrealforthis(seeThrift,thisvolume).indeedasthedistinctionbetweentheworldanditsmeaningwhichsustainssocialconstructivismiscollapsedthe‘real’andthe‘reallymade-up’arerevealedassynonyms,theirdistinctionitselfaneffectofcertainpractices.Toclose thissectionwewant tooutline twoconsequencesfromthediscussionsofar.

Firstly, the ‘background’ itself ishardly inert. if thedescriptionofpracticalbodiesandworldsgivensofarsoundstoonaturalisticweneedonlythinkaboutthewaysinwhichthehumansensoriummaybetrained,cultivatedandentrained.non-representational theory was not the first to examine this ‘pre-personal’ dimension of existence.Throughitssustainedengagementwiththephenomenologicaltradition,humanisticgeography5constantlyhighlighted the importanceof tacit andpre-

4 non-representationaltheorythusrunsalongwithotherturnstowardsperformanceandperformativitywhichmaybefoundoccurringmoreorlesscontemporaneouslyacrossgeography, the social sciences and humanities. see for example Butler (1990, 1993),sedgwick(2003),Parkerandsedgwick(1995),gregsonandRose(2000),Phelan(1993,1997).

5 Whatgoesbythename‘humanistic’or‘humanistic’isitselfavariegatedtradition,that still has a force in the present (e.g.adams, hoelscher and Till 2001; Mels 2004),particularly given the myriad processes of dehumanisation that damage and destroyhumans. We could say the concern of humanistic geographies is something like thecomposition of environments that can reflect and enhance the variety of human experience (Relph1976;seamon1979)andthemeansofdevelopinganexperientiallyrichaccountoflivedexperience(seeTuan1977).Thecritiquesarenowwellknown–thatagenericandessentialist figure of ‘the human’ and ‘human experience’ was centred and celebrated, and thattheconceptofplaceignoredprocess,powerrelationsandremainedtoobounded(seeMassey1997;Rose1993).Foranaccountoftheculturalpoliticsofplacethatworkedthe

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




cognitiverealmsintheformationofselves,societiesandplaces,andthemyriadways subjects inhabit theworldbefore they represent thatworld to themselvesandothers.howevercompared to theaccountsofferedbynon-representationaltheory,humanistic accounts canappear toonaturalistic andnormative.Perhapsacloser relative is tobe found inPierreBourdieu’s (1977)accountofhabitus,which effectivelyhistoricises andpoliticisesphenomenological accountsof the‘background’. however, for all its insight and recognition of contingency andthe importance of improvisation, Bourdieu’s account of the habitus remainscuriously inert, constantly supplementedbydeterminate structural logics at theexpenseofthe‘slightsurpriseofaction’(Butler1997,decerteau1984,latour1999).PerhapscloserstillareWalterBenjamin’s(1992;1997,seelatham1999)accountsofourdistracted,tactileandhabitualmeansof‘understanding’thecityand life in capitalist societies. in his famous city essays Benjamin describes amobile, embodied, geo-historically specific, sensuous knowing; his object is not an individual but rather modes and moments of subjectification as they emerge across adistractedcollectiveofhabitsandgestures,buildingsandcourtyards,speedsandslownesses.itisthisaccount,bothmoreopenand more specific, which seems to usclosesttothosegiveninnon-representationaltheory.

Secondly, if the ‘background’ is geo-historically specific and generative then it isopentointervention,manipulationandinnovation.Thrift(1996,2008),forexample, has traced how many of the spaces of everyday life are increasinglybeing inhabited, in one way or another, by pervasive intelligent technologies,includingbiomedical, imaging,storageandrecall, trackand trace,computationandreal-timemodelling,aswellasmixturesofalloftheabove:

Reach and memory are being extended; perceptions which were difficult or impossibletoregisterarebecomingroutinelyavailable;newkindsofunderstatedintelligence are becoming possible.These developments are probably havingmosteffectinthepre-cognitivedomain,leadingtothepossibilityofarguingthatwhatweareseeingisthelayingdownofasystem(orsystems)ofdistributedpre-cognition(Thrift2008,164).

Wemay think, for example,of the increasing roleof environmental sensors inthesupportandcareof theelderly, involvingnewformsofunobtrusiveremotemonitoringandfeedbacksuchasbedandchairoccupancymonitors,oftencoupledintelligentlightingnetworks,propertyexitsensors,andfridgecontentmonitors.Through laying down ‘awareness’ or even ‘intelligence’ into the environment,eachof these technologiesmakes thedeliveryof long termcare in individual’sand family’s homes far more feasible, especially for those with dementia orincreasing physical frailty. of course, the development and implementation ofsuch technologiesneednotbe sobenign.as the ‘background’orpre-cognitive

insightsofhumanisticgeographiesthroughaconcernwithsocialdifferenceseecresswell(1996).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




realmisrenderedvisiblesoitbecomesavailabletobeworkedonbyawholesetofnew entities and institutions as, for example, in the increasingly refined attempts to build in kinesthetic and affective experiences into specific commodities, political figures or environing spaces (Thrift 2008; Adey 2008). Here we may think of Jane Bennett’s(2001,seealsoMccormackthisvolume)analysisofthe‘swingingkahkis’gaPadvertisingcampaign,BrianMassumi’s(2002b)discussionoftheattentiontobodylanguageandpathiccommunicationinthetelevisionappearancesofformerusPresidentRonaldReagan,andThrift’s(2008)discussionsofthearchitecturesofanticipationatworkinurbansettings.Whilesuchworkhasbeencriticisedforreintroducing deterministic accounts of social and political action (see Barnett2008), almost all work within non-representational theory maintains that while‘background’,pre-cognitiverealmsmaynotalwaysbestraightforwardlyamenableto conscious reflexivity and representation, this does not make them completely alien and determining. Rather, manipulation, where it is achieved, is always afragile and contingent achievement, ‘prone to failure and always reliant uponbeing continually reworked in relation to creative responses’ (ash forthcoming).allowing subjects to become more involved, more complex and less certain oftheirboundariesandthemselvesneednotleadtofunctionalismandbehaviourism.indeed, practical existence is clearly available to many forms of self and group‘fashioning’.Fromthe‘techniquesoftheself’describedinFoucault’s(1997b)laterwork,toashamin(2006)on‘everydaycosmopolitanism’,andJonathandarling’s(thisvolume)examinationofpracticesofhospitality,itisclearthepre-cognitiveisnotsimplyarealmforcolonisation,dominationandcontrolbutforcultivationandintervention.Quitesimply,howeverstabletheymaybeatanyonetimeinanyoneplace, background practices are open to change and reconfiguration.

in emphasising practical, lived experience, non-representational theory hasbeen identified as a form of Humanistic Geography, and charged with repeating the samemistakes;thecentringofauniversal,unmarked,subjectshornofdifference(nash2000;saldanha2005;Tolia-kelly2006).however, thecommentsaboveshouldgosomewaytodisabusethisunderstandingas,insofarasithasasubject,thisisasubjectthatisradicallycontingent,whichisalwaysinandofthemixtureof many different elements, but which is also irreducibly specific in its existence (seeharrison,thisvolume;Wylie,thisvolume).Forusthemorepressingquestionhereiswhatbecomesofthesubjectandthesocialas such onceconstructivismisradicalisedinthemannerdescribedaboveandthehumanisunderstoodtobepartoftheon-goingbecomingofworlds?itistothisquestionweturnnow.

Life and the social

Thoughtisplacedinactionandactionisplacedintheworld.Thisisthestartingpointforallnon-representationaltheories.yethoweverimportantthesebeginningstheyarenotthesumofnon-representationaltheory.Throughoutthe1990sandintothiscenturytheinitialattentiontopracticesinnon-representationaltheorymorphed

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




intoaconcernwithlife,andthevitalprocessesthatcomposeit(seeThrift,thisvolume).Whileaconcernforpracticesand‘worlds’provideswaysforrethinkingthe process of ordering, appearance and signification beyond the normative assumptions of humanism and the idealist confines of social constructivism, as wellasinjectingadegreeofactionandmovementbackintothecompositionofthesocial,thesearestillverymuchpracticesreckonedintermsofthehuman;carriedoutbyhumansinworldswhichareforhumans.andyet,asbegantobecomecleartowards the end of the last section, the figure of the human is haunted by all kinds ofthings,byallthatwhichneedstobeexcludedforittomaintainitspurityandexceptionalism.humans,theirdesiresandplans,areclearlynottheonlythingsactiveintheworld, infactoftenwemaybeverysmallplayersinmuchbiggertrans- and non-human systems and complexes. Hence in 1999 we find Thrift writing about places as ‘spectral gatherings’; relational-material ‘crossroads’where many different things gather, not just deliberative humans but a diverserangeofactorsandforces,someofwhichweknowabout,somenot,andsomeofwhichmaybejustontheedgeofawareness.Theshifttothinkingaboutlifeis,therefore,ashifttothinkingabouthowworldsmaybearrayedandorganisedwithhumans,butnotonlyhumans.Toarbitrarilystoprelationalunderstandingsofphenomenaattheboundaryofthehumanistore-inscribepreciselythedividesbetween inside and outside, meaning and world, subject and site, which werefirst in question.6ifwearetorejoinandrethinkthesedivides,itfollowsthatthe‘missingmasses’mustbeallowedbackintothesocialfoldandthecontingencyofthehumanacknowledged.henceinthissection,thequestioniswhatbecomesof the ‘social’ in thisprocess?Tostart togiveananswer thisquestionwewillfirst discuss the general implications of an expanded materialism before turning directlytothequestionofthe‘social’.

indistinctiontophenomenologicallyinclinedpracticebasedapproaches,wefind a wider and wilder sense of a life in Deleuze’s joint writings with Guattari (seedewsbury2000;2003).deleuze’s(2001,29)lastpieceofpublishedwriting– Immanence: A Life – is perhaps the touchstone for this work. likened to aparable,aphorismandtestamentbyJohnRajchman,deleuzewritesofalifeas

� This is not to suggest there is no debate about and reflection on these issues within non-representationaltheory,thereclearlyis.indeedmuchrecentworkunderthisnamehasconcerned precisely the status of and how to think about the human, but a human defined not by a putative essence or identity, that is to say debate around how to figure the human afterorwithinthebroadermovementofanti-humanism.compareforexampleharrison(2008,2009,thisvolume),Mccormack(thisvolume),Rose(thisvolume),Thrift(2008),Wylie (2009, this volume). it is also interesting to note that as well as being critiquedforharbouringanimplicitnormativismhumanism,asoutlinedabove,inalmostthesameinstant,non-representational theoryhasalsobeencriticised forbeing tooanti-humanist,(see for example Bondi 2005; Thien 2005). Without wanting to presage the on-goingdebatesjustnoted,wewouldsimplynotehowthissituationsuggeststhat,insofarasithasone,non-representationaltheorymayhaveanewaccountofthehuman,oneirreducibletoeitherofthetermsofcritique.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




an ‘impersonality’ that is unattributable to our particular identifications as people orselves:

alifeiseverywhere,inallthemomentsthatagivenlivingsubjectgoesthroughandthataremeasuredbygivenlivedobjects:animmanent lifecarryingwithittheeventsofsingularitiesthataremerelyactualisedinsubjectsandobjects(deleuze2001,29).

simplyputa life isnot the lifeofanalreadyconstituted individualor subject;alifeismadeupofsingularitiesthatarebothoutsideandthepossibilityoftheparticular identifications that enable us to say ‘we’ or ‘I’. Just as all beginnings are imaginary so are all identifications. As such, the techniques, sensibilities and methodsdevelopedinparticularthroughengagementswithdeleuzeandguattari,andpost-phenomenologistssuchaslingis,havetakenastheirtasktoattendtoalifethatoccursbeforeandalongsidetheformationofsubjectivity,acrosshumanandnon-humanmaterialitiesandin-betweendistinctionsbetweenbodyandsoul,materialityandincorporeality(afterseigworth2003,6;seeandersonandWylie2009; latham and Mccormack 2004; greenhough, this volume; lorimer, thisvolume;hinchliffe,thisvolume;Roe,thisvolume).

This gives us to the second commitment through which we may recognisenon-representational theories;followingonfromaconcernwithpractices,non-representational theories work with a relational-material or ‘associative’ account of ‘the social’. Whilstthis definition maynotsoundveryprecisethisis,inmanyrespects, thepoint; thesocial isaweavingofmaterialbodiesthatcanneverbecleanlyorclearlycleavedintoasetofnamed,knownandrepresentedidentities.More specifically, non-representational theories are concerned with the distribution of ‘the human’ across some form of assemblage that includes all manner ofmaterialities.7Wewouldsuggestthatthisapproachinvolvesthreestartingpoints;acommitmenttoanexpandedsocialincludingallmannerofmaterialbodies,anattention to relationsandbeing-in-relation,andsensitivity to ‘almost-notquite’entities such as affects. In order to flesh out non-representational theory’s approach tothesocialandsocialityitisworthaddressingeachofthesepointsinalittlemoredetail.

First,andlearningfromearlyexplorationsinactor-networktheory,alongsidethe various embodied practices and capacities discussed above, the social is

7 There are multiple uses of the term ‘assemblage’ in geography (see McFarlane2009).Forus,assemblagefunctionsasasensitisingdevicetotheontologicaldiversityofactants,thegroupingofthoseactants,theresultingdistributionofagenticcapacities,andanoutsidethatexceedsthegrouping(afterBennett2005).Thisretainsthesenseofassemblageas agencement (in the sense of arrangement) in deleuze and guattari (1987), withoutnecessarilyrepeatingthedistinctionbetweentheactualisedandunactualisedthatisattheheartofdelanda’s(2006)realistdevelopmentofdeleuzeandguattari’smorphogeneticaccountoflife.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




repopulated by objects, machines, and animals (see Bingham 1996; hincliffe1996,Murdoch1998;Whatmore2002).8Theseentitiesdonotexistindependentlyfromoneanother,neatlyseparatedintodiscreteontologicaldomains;ratherallco-existonthesame‘planeofimmanence’(deleuzeandguattari1987).consider,for example, the sheer multiplicity of materialities that are mixed together innon-representational inspired empirical work; beliefs, atmospheres, sensations,ideas, toys, music, ghosts, dance therapies, footpaths, pained bodies, trancemusic, reindeer, plants, boredom, fat, anxieties, vampires, cars, enchantment,nanotechnologies,watervoles,gMFoods,landscapes,drugs,money,racialisedbodies,politicaldemonstrations.Whatgivesconsistency to thisproliferationofwhatever matters, what holds together this open ended list, is a simple affirmation; materialitytakesmanyforms(seeandersonandWylie2009;seegreenhough,thisvolume,Roe,thisvolume;hinchliffe,thisvolume).non-representationaltheoryisunusual, then,inbeing thoroughlymaterialist.itdoesnotlimita prioriwhatkindofbeingsmakeupthesocial.Rathereverythingtakes-partandintaking-part,takes-place:everythinghappens,everythingacts.everything, includingimages,wordsandtexts(doel,thisvolume;dewsbury,thisvolume;laurier,thisvolume).hencearelational-materialistapproachdepartsfromunderstandingsofthesocialasordereda priori(beitsymbolically,ontologically,orotherwise)inamannerthatwould,forexample,settheconditionsforhowobjectsappear,orasanostensivestructurethatstandsbehindanddeterminespracticalaction.in thetaking-placeofpractices, thingsandevents there isnoroomforhiddenforces,noroomforuniversal transcendentals or first principles. And so even representations become understoodaspresentations;asthingsandeventstheyenactworlds,ratherthanbeingsimplego-betweens taskedwith re-presentingsomepre-existingorderorforce.intheirtaking-placetheyhaveanexpressivepowerasactiveinterventionsintheco-fabricationofworlds.dewsbury,harrison,RoseandWylie(2002,438)put this well in one of the first commentaries on non-representational theory when theystressthat

non-representational theory takes representation seriously; representation notasacodetobebrokenorasaillusiontobedispelledratherrepresentationsare

8 Theinterestinmatterandmaterialityhasoccurredaspartofabroadconcernwiththe‘re-materialisation’ofBritishsocialandculturalgeography.callsto‘rematerialise’werethemselves responses to the perceived overemphasis on signification in the New Cultural Geography (Jackson 2000). It should be noted that there are now significant differences within social and cultural geography around how matter is theorised. compare, forexample, theexpansivesenseofwhatcountsasamaterialbody innon-representationaltheoriestotheconcernforacircumscribedrealmofobjectsinmaterialculturestudies,orthecontinueduseof‘thematerial’torefertoanostensivesocialstructure(forsummariesofdifferenttheoriesofmatterandmaterialityseeandersonandTolia-kelly2004;cookandTolia-kelly2008).Theclosestconnectionstonon-representationaltheorycanprobablybefoundintheemphasisontheforceofmaterialityincorporealFeminism(seeslocum2008;colls2007).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




apprehendedasperformativeinthemselves;asdoings.Thepointhereistoredirectattentionfromthepositedmeaningtowardsthematerialcompositionsandconductofrepresentations(dewsbury,harrison,RoseandWylie2002,438).

second,non-representationaltheorymaybecharacterisedbyanattentiontobeing-inandbeing-ofrelation.anattentionwhichbeginsfromthe‘vitaldiscovery’thatrelations are exterior and irreducibleto their terms(deleuze2006,41).Thekeypoint here is that beginning from relations, ‘thinking relationally’, opensup ‘aworldinwhichtheconjunction“and”dethronestheinteriorityoftheverb“is”’(deleuze2001,38).9indialoguewithclaireParnet,deleuzegivesasenseofthestrangetopologiesandtopographiesthatopenupifonethinkswithandinsteadofis;thatis,ifonethinksofrelationsbeingasrealasthedifferentmaterialbodiesthatpopulatethesocial:

Relations are exterior to their terms. ‘Peter is smaller than Paul’, ‘The glassis on the table’: relation is neither internal to one of the terms which wouldconsequentlybesubject,nortotwotogether.Moreover,arelationmaychangewithoutthetermschanging...Relationsareinthemiddle,andexistassuch.Thisexteriorityofrelationsisnotaprinciple,itisavitalprotestagainstprinciples...ifonetakesthisexteriorityofrelationsasaconductingwireorasaline,oneseesaverystrangeworldunfold,fragmentbyfragment:aharlequin’sjacketorpatchwork,madeupofsolidpartsandvoids,blocsandruptures,attractionsanddivisions,nuancesandbluntnesses,conjunctionsandseparations,alternationsandinterweavings,additionswhichneverreachatotalandsubtractionswhoseremainder is never fixed (Deleuze 200�, 41).

Theemphasisonrelationsresonateswithabroadinterestacrosshumangeographyin how everything, from places to identities, is ‘relationally constituted’ (see2004special issueofGeografiska Annaler B).Theresult isanemphasisontheproliferationofdiverserelationsandastrongsensethattheresultingordersareopen, provisional, achievements. However, pushing on, any simple definition of ‘relation’ is immediately undone by the irreducible plurality of relations.indeed that relations are plural is the main lesson of an ‘after’ actor-networktheoryliterature,alessonincreasinglybeingtakenupingeographyandonethat

9 There are many emerging questions and unresolved tensions in geography’streatmentof‘relations’and‘relationality’,including;howtobearwitnesstothepluralityofrelations?;howtounderstandthe‘reality’(feltorotherwise)ofrelations?;arerelationsinternalorexternaltotheirterms?;canrelationschangewithoutthetermsalsochanging?;areactualentitiesexhaustedby their relations?;andhowto thinkwhatcouldbe termedthe‘non-relational’?(seeforexampleMarston,JonesandWoodward2005;Massey2005;harrison2007;harman2009).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




hasbecomecentral to non-representational theory.10The consequence is that itis not enough to simply assert that phenomena are ‘relationally constituted’ orinvoketheformofthenetwork,ratheritbecomesnecessarytothinkthroughthespecificity and performative efficacy of different relations and different relational configurations (see Whatmore 2002; Hincliffe, this volume; Roe, this volume). Somewhat counter-intuitively perhaps, a general affirmation of relations seems toleadtofocusonthis specific relation.

Third,workinnon-representationaltheoryhasexaminedhowthesocialiscomposedofentitiesthatarebothpresentandabsent;ithasdrawnattentiontotheroleof‘objects’suchasaffects,virtualmemories,hauntings,andatmospheresintheenactment,compositionanddurabilityofthesocial.11Therearedebateswithin non-representational work around how to attend to absence (compareWylie, this volume and harrison, this volume to Mccormack, this volume).nevertheless, there isasharedconcernfor ‘objects’ thatarebothpresentandabsent,neitheronenor theother.hencetheconstantattentiontoquestionsofaffect innon-representationalwork,or,putdifferently, thecapacities toaffectandbeaffectedofhumanandnon-humanmaterialities(anderson2006a;2009;Mccormack2002;2003;2008;Thrift2004;Bissell2008;2009;simpson2008;seeBissell, thisvolumeandMccormack, thisvolume).12Whilst undoubtedlycontested,thetermaffecthascometonamethealeatorydynamicsofexperience,the‘push’oflifewhichinterrupts,unsettlesandhauntspersons,placesorthings(Bennett2010).Thesocialisaffectiveanditisoftenthroughaffectthatrelations

10 note, for example, the proper names that are given to just some of the shapesrelationscantake:‘encounter,arrival,address,contact,touch,belonging,distance,accord,agreement,determination,measuring,translation,andcommunicationaresomesuchformsofrelation’(gasché1999,11).

11 The emphasis on the fold between materiality and immateriality chimes withrecentworkonspectrality,hauntingandthepeculiarpersistenceofthepast(seePile2005;edensor2005;adeyandMaddern2008).

12 debatesaroundhow to theorise ‘affect’ and ‘emotion’havebecomesomethingof a cipher for engagement with non-representational theory more broadly. We havedeliberately downplayed the significance of affect in this introduction (and collection) becausenon-representational theoriesdomuchmore thanofferanaccountofworldsofaffect.Thedebateaboutaffect,emotionand their interrelationhave turnedaround threepointsofconcernandcritique;theapparentdistinctionbetweenemphasisinganimpersonallife and the embodied experience of subjects; the relation between affect and signification; andthecrypto-normativismthathasarguablybeensmuggledintoworkonthepoliticsofaffect(seeBondi2005;Thien2005;Tolia-kelly2006;Mccormack2006;andersonandharrison2006;Barnett2008).Whilstwehaveourviewsonthetoneandcontentofthisdebate,aswellasdifferentpositionswithinit,wewillleaveittothereadertonavigatetheirownwaythroughthediscussion.Whatwedowanttostressisthatthereisan‘affectiveturn’occurringbeyondhumangeographywheresimilarissuesarebeinggrappledwith,inparticularbyFeministandqueertheoryscholarsworkingwithaconceptofaffect(seeforexampleclough2007;Puar2007;stewart2007).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




are interrupted, changed or solidified. Or so we learn through inventive work thatdescribeshowbodiesdancetogether(Mccormack2003),attendstobodiessearedbypain(Bissell2009),orpaysattentiontothegeographiesoflove(Wylie2009).Theattentiontoaffectasadynamicprocessthatcutsacrosspreviouslyseparated ontological and epistemological domains can be understood as afurther repopulation of the social, this time with entities that are both muchlessandmuchmorethanpresent.Weshouldnot,however,besurprisedattheintimacy a worldly, materialist thought has with reflections on immateriality. Fromthevoidofepicureanphilosophythroughtotheproletariat inhistoricalmaterialism,spectreshavehauntedall materialisms(Pile2005).

Toreturndirectlytothissectionsopeningquestion:ifthesupposedlyuniquepowers of the human have been problematised by a materialist emphasis onamore-than-human life,what thenbecomesof the term‘social’?Perhapsweshouldjettisontheterm,despiteorperhapsbecauseofitscurrentwidecurrency(Thrift2008)?howeverthisis,insomesenses,toplacethecartbeforethehorse.Toexplain;inofferinganassociativeunderstandingofthesocial,andbreakingwith a focus on collective symbolic orders, non-representational theory hasaffinities of method and sensibility with a whole series of ‘minor’ traditions in social geography; most notably, the longstanding attention to practice intime-geography(hägerstrand1973,1982;Pred1977;latham2003),Feministwork on performance and performativity (gregson and Rose 2000), ervinggoffman’s dramaturgical account of social action (Thrift 1983) and haroldGarfinkel’s ethnomethodological investigations (Laurier, this volume). As withnon-representational theory,allattempt tomoveawayfromadistinctionbetween ‘individual’ and ‘society’ and all share an emphasis on the ongoingcompositionof thesocialfromwithinthe‘roughground’ofpracticesandtheconcreterichnessoflife.

Latour (2005) offers perhaps the sharpest account of the refigured notion of the ‘social’ that non-representational theories share, and which perhaps goessomewaytodistinguishthemfromtheaforementionedtraditions.Thesocial,according to latour, is a certain sort of circulation, where action is alwaysdislocated,articulated,delegated,and translated; it isnotaspecialdomainorspecific realm but ‘a very peculiar movement of re-association and reassembling’ (2005,7).itisatypeofconnectionbetweenthingsthatarenotthemselvessocial(ibid.,159):

At first this definition seems absurd since it risks diluting sociology to mean any type of aggregate from chemical bonds to legal ties, from atomic forcesto corporate bodies, from physiological to political assemblies. But this ispreciselythepointthatthisalternativebranchofsocialtheorywishestomakeasallthoseheterogeneouselementsmight beassembledanewinsomegivenstateofaffairs.Farfrombeingamindbogglinghypothesis,thisisonthecontrarythemostcommonexperiencewehaveinencounteringthepuzzlingfaceofthesocial.anewvaccineisbeingmarketed,anewjobdescriptionisoffered,anewpolitical

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




movementisbeingcreated,anewplanetarysystemsisdiscovered,anewlawisvoted, a new catastrophe occurs. In each instance we reshuffle our conceptions of what was associated together because the previous definition has been made somewhatirrelevant.Wearenolongersureaboutwhat‘we’means;weseemtobeboundby‘ties’thatdon’tlooklikeregularsocialties(latour2005,5-6,emphasis original).

however,itispreciselythe‘holdingtogether’ofdifferentkindsofbodiesthatmustbe explained. ‘The social’ is, toparaphraselatour,preciselywhatmustbe explained rather than that which can be invoked to explain the durabilityofthisorthatpracticalordering.Quitesimply,thereisnoorder,thereisonlymultipleorderings,andpracticesarethecontextforandnecessaryconditionofthoseorders,eachofwhichmustbeactivelycomposedorfail(seelaurier,thisvolume;hinchliffe,thisvolume;Bissell,thisvolume;simonsen,thisvolume).

Thisdoesnotmean,wewouldstress,thatbecausethereisnosupplementarydimensiontothesocialthattherearenodurableorders,orthatthoseordersdonotincludemanyformsofdamage,loss,sufferingandharm.onthecontrary,beginning from the social as a practical achievement provides a methodfor thinking through how systematic processes of harm become systematic.systematicorderingsarethemselvesmultiplicities–composedofcomplexandshifting relations between seemingly discrete elements and types of elements(connolly 2008).The only way to understand the durability of orderings (orcollections of orderings) is to trace the relations between the heterogeneouselementsthatcomposethem,tofollowhowtheresultantassemblagefunctions,andtomaptheencountersthroughwhichtheelementswithinassemblagesarebroughtintocontactwithforcesoutsideofthem.Weseethisinsightbeingworkedthroughmostclearly,althoughbynomeansexclusively,inrecentworkontheformationofraceandracisms,whereracialisedbodiesareformedthrough theagglomerationofdiverseelements, including,butnever limited to,biologicalmaterialities such as phenotypes. Race is here addressed as an assemblageformedfromwithintheheterogeneousmaterialitiesofbodies,technologiesandplaces, racial difference being a heterogeneous process of differentiation, assaldanha(2007)putsit.Thetaskbecomestograsphowrace,racialdifferencesandpotentiallyothersocialdifferences(lim2007),form,becomedurableandexert a force alongside the many other relations and relational configurations thatmakeupthe‘social’(seesaldanha2006;2007;swanton2008;lim2007;saldanha,thisvolume;darling,thisvolume;simonsen,thisvolume).

asnotedabove,oneofthepromisesofnon-representationaltheoryisthatitoffersaradicallyconstructionistratherthansocial constructionistaccountofthe‘social’.asMassumi(2002a)stresses,constructionistaccountsof ‘thesocial’wonder about stasis given the primacy of process: how do things fit together and hold togetheracrossdifferences?howto think the irreduciblecontingencyoforder?Beginningfromtheprimacyofprocessopensupthequestionofchange;howareordersdisrupted,howdoordersfail,andhowareneworderscominginto

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




being,ifonlymomentarily?itistoaconsiderationofchangethatwenowturninorder to introduce the third and final way we may recognise non-representational theories;throughtheirconcernwithevents.

events and futurity

ifnon-representationaltheoriesbeginfrompracticesandadvocatearelational-materialistanalysisofthesocial,whythename‘non-representationaltheory’?anamethathasaddedtothesenseofpromise,wariness,andperhapsevenirritationthathassurroundednon-representationalstylesofthinkinganddoingoverthepast 15years or so.aswehave stressed above, and is hopefully apparent inPartiiofthisbook,non-representationalstylesofthinkingcanbynomeansbecharacterisedasanti-representationper se.Ratherwhatpassforrepresentationsare apprehended as performative presentations, not reflections of some a prioriorderwaitingtobeunveiled,decoded,orrevealed.Butmaybethenamewasamistake,maybeitisnowtimetodispensewithitinfavourofsomethingmoreaffirmative – ‘more-than-representational theory’ being one popular suggestion (lorimer2005;seeRose,thisvolume)?Perhapsthough,andlikeactor-networktheory,thepromiseofnon-representationaltheorywouldhavebeenbetrayedbyanynamethatenabledittobeeasilysummedupandreduced.Wethinkthereissomething more in the name; a force to the prefix ‘non’ that hints to something vital to non-representational theories that is worth thinking with and affirming. The‘non’isfrustratinglyelusive,itcannotbethoughtassuch.itleavesthingsincomplete. It manages to obscure what it affirms by studiously avoiding positivenomination(seedewsbury,thisvolume;harrison,thisvolume;doel,thisvolume).

In these ways the prefix ‘non’ opens up the third way that we can recognise non-representationaltheories;they are marked by an attention to events and the new potentialities for being, doing and thinking that events may bring forth. ‘Theevent’hasbeensuchanimportantconceptandempiricalconcernfornon-representationaltheoriesbecauseitopensupthequestionofhowtothinkaboutchange. in the previous section we argued that non-representational theoriesshareareversaloftherelationbetweenstasisandprocess,wecannowsaymorepreciselythatthetaskofamaterialistanalysisofthesocialistounderstandthestability of form amid the dynamism of formation (Massumi 2002b). Withinthis thinking ‘the event’ is of importance because it allows the emphasis onthecontingencyoforderstomorphintoanexplicitconcernwiththenew,andwiththechancesofinventionandcreativity.aseventshavetodowith‘lightingfires’; with solicitations or provocations, with promises and threats that create:

atransformingmomentthatreleasesfromthegripofthepresentandopensupthefutureinawaythatmakespossibleanewbirth,anewbeginning,anewinventionofourselves,evenasitawakensdangerousmemories(caputo2007,6).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




Fleshing out these comments requires, however, that we think carefully aboutwhatwemeanbytheterm‘event’.Therearemanyoccurrenceswhichwemightwanttounderstandasevents.Therearealsomanywaysinwhich‘theevent’isconceptualised, addressed and handled not only within non-representationaltheories but also by architects, site specific artists, security professionals and other creatorsofbotheventsand theiropposite– recognisedoccurrences.given thisheterogeneity,let’sconsidertwoexamplesofwhatwemighttaketobeeventsinordertounpackwhatwemeanbythetermandpresentacoupleofthedifferentwaysinwhichnon-representationaltheoriesthinktherelationbetweenorderings,events and change (though see dewsbury, this volume; doel, this volume;Woodard,thisvolume;Mccormack,thisvolume).

First,consideragraniteobeliskknownascleopatra’sneedlethatsitsonthecharingcrossembankment,london,uk.Placed in its currentpositionon12september1878,itmayappearfarremovedfromthedynamismandtransitorinesswemightwant toassociatewith theconceptofevent.TheprocessphilosopheralfredWhiteheadthoughtdifferently.hesawitasacontinualevent,orbetteracomplexofpassingevents:

If we define the Needle in a sufficiently abstract manner we can say that it never changes.Butaphysicistwholooksonpartofthelifeofnatureasadanceofelectrons,willtellyouthatdailyithaslostsomemoleculesandgainedothers,andeventheplainmancanseethatitgetsdirtierandisoccasionallywashed(2004[1920],167).

Here we find a first sense of the event – the event as a continual differing, if only inmodestways,thattakes-placeinrelationtoanever-changingcomplexofotherevents.For,asWhiteheadwentontostress,eventshavealwaysjusthappenedorareabouttohappen:

you cannot recognise an event; because when its gone, it is gone.you mayobserveanothereventofanalogouscharacter,buttheactualchunkofthelifeofnatureisinseparablefromitsuniqueoccurrence.Butthecharacterofaneventcanberecognised.Weallknowthatifwegototheembankmentnearcharingcrosswe shallobserveaneventhaving thecharacterwhichwe recogniseascleopatra’sneedle(2004[1920],169).

herethedivergenceanddiscordthateventsbringisnotrare,norisitsomeformofcaesura,rather‘whereverandwheneversomethingisgoingonthereisanevent’(Whitehead1920,78).Puttingitinthetermsoftheprevioussections(termswhicharenotnecessarilyWhitehead’s)wecouldsaythateventsareprimaryinaworldin which the background is open to modification and in which diverse material bodiesareconstantlybeingbroughtintorelation.heretheterm‘event’describestheescapingedgeofanysystemisationoreconomisation; theeffectsoraffectsof any ‘line of flight’ (see Deleuze and Guattari 1987). It is only with effort that

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




anysuch‘slightsurprise’ofactioncanbeturnedbackintoareproductionofanexistingorder(latour1999;Massumi2002a).

if we are caught within a world of becomings, where events can be foundeverywhere,thenanyorderingisalwaysvolatile.Thisisthebasicinsightattheheartofthinkingwiththeevent.however,thereareotherwaysofconceptualisingthe relationbetweenevents, changeandorder.aslightlydifferent senseof theeventasararesurprise thatbreakswithhowthebackgroundisorganised,oraspecific social-material configuration is assembled, has animated other non-representationaltheories.let’sconsiderasecondexampleofwhatwemightwanttounderstandasanevent–theeventthathascometobehousedwithinadate–september11th–oranumber–9/11.Forderrida,itistheverybrevityofthisnameandnumberthatindicatesthat,perhaps,aneventinthesenseofanabsolutesurprisemayhavetaken-place:

‘something’tookplace,wehavethefeelingofnothavingseenitcoming,andcertainconsequencesundeniablyfollowuponthe‘thing’.Butthisverything,theplaceandmeaningofthis‘event’,remainsineffable,likeanintuitionwithoutaconcept,likeaunicitywithnogeneralityonthehorizonorwithnohorizonatall,outofrangeforalanguagethatadmitsitspowerlessnessandsoisreducedtopronouncingmechanicallyadate,repeatingitendlessly,asakindofritualincantation, a conjuring poem, a journalistic litany or rhetorical refrain thatadmitstonotknowingwhatit’stalkingabout(derrida2003,86).

derridagoeson to stress that the ‘impression’ that9/11wasa ‘majorevent’has been reflected on, interpreted and communicated, and that this process is itself an ‘event’ in the sense of a modification. But is this the same as a ‘major event’?Whilstthemovementofappropriationis‘irreducibleandineluctable’,fortheretobeaneventappropriationmustfalteratsome‘borderorfrontier’(2003,90):

afrontier,however,withneitherfrontnorconfrontation,onethatincomprehensiondoesnot run intoheadon since it does not take the formof a solid front: itescapes, remains evasive, open, undecided, indeterminable. Whence theunappropriability,theunforeseeability,absolutesurprise,incomprehension,theriskofmisunderstanding,unanticipatablenovelty,puresingularity,theabsenceofhorizon(2003,90-91).

If we accept this as the minimal definition of the event, then was ‘9/11’ an event? Thisislesscertain,evenifweagreewithWhiteheadthatthereissomethingofaneventeverytimesomethinghappens,sinceaneventofa‘terroristattack’wasforeseen,therewereprecedentsandtheevent9/11wasveryquicklycapturedingeopoliticalandbiopoliticalprojectsofwarandsecurity.hencehere theeventisunderstoodalittledifferentlytoinourpreviousexample;heretheeventisanabsolutesurprise,somethingthatbrings‘contingency,unpredictability,andchance

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




intotheworld’(dastur2000,179).events,onthisunderstanding,mustbreach,shatter and overflow horizons of expectation or anticipation, and as such are scarce (caputo2007).Facedwith thisrarityandthisalterity,wemight, instead,focuson all the ways in which practical orders repeat and reproduce by making theunforeseeable foreseeable and the unrepeatable repeatable, that is all the waysinwhicheventsareforeseen,foresaidandforeclosed(seederrida2007,seealsoharrisonthisvolume;Rosethisvolume).

inbothexamplestheeventdoesnotresemble,conform,orreproduceasetofa prioriconditions.itdoesnot representthoseconditions.Rather,andindifferentways,eventsbreakwiththeirextantconditions,forcingorinvitingustothinkandact differently (Massumi 2002a, xxiv-xxv). It may be that like the prefix ‘non’ we can only define the event negatively – the event is the impossible which happens. Theevent‘[a]lwayscomestousbysurprise,orfromthatsidewhence,precisely,itwasnotexpected’(dastur2000,183).Thesharedsenseof‘theevent’asthatwhichopensupthechanceofsomethingdifferentisexpressedwellbyRajchman(1991,ix):

[The event] is not defined by a fixed beginning and end, but is something that occurs in themidstof ahistory, causingus to redistributeour senseofwhathasgonebeforeitandwhatmightcomeafter.aneventisthusnotsomethingone inserts into an emplotted dramatic sequence with its start and finish, for it initiatesanewsequence thatretrospectivelydetermines itsbeginnings,andwhichleavesitsendsunknownorundetermined.

The emphasis on the chance of the event means that it is not quite correct tocharacterisenon-representationaltheoryasatypeofpracticetheory,eventhough,as discussed above, it places thought-in-action, nor as only offering a form ofrelational materialism, albeit one attuned to affect and other absent-present‘objects’.although‘theevent’isconceptualisedinvariousways,theconceptissocentraltonon-representationaltheorybecauseitoffersawayofthinkingabouthowchangeoccurs in relation to theon-goingformationof ‘thesocial’.hencethe desire that has animated non-representational theory has been to find a means ofattendingtothedifference,divergenceanddifferentiationthateventsopenup,ormayopenup.Wesee thisacrosswork thathasattempted tobearwitness tothepotentialfordifferencereleasedbythetaking-placeofarangeofevents;thefleeting potential that follows the event of a sexually charged glance between two people(lim2007),theperformativeforceandsenseofmutabilityfoundindanceandtheperformingarts(dewsbury2000);thepotentialforbetterwaysofbeingtouched in moments of hope (anderson 2006a), and explicitly political eventsthatbreakwiththestateofanexistingsituation(dewsbury2007,Woodward,thisvolume).Thelighteningofpossiblestorms.

Thequestionoftheeventopensupafurthersetofissuesabouthowtocreateand sustain events; how to bear and extend the potential that events open up,thesenseofpromiseandfuturitythattheymayhold?how,toputitdifferently,

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




torelatetothefuturewithoutcapturingitandneutralisingitbeforeithappens?across tangibledifferences in theoryandmethod,non-representational theoriesshare an affinity of sensibility, what we could call a specific ‘existential faith’ that crossesvariousattemptstocontribute,ifonlymodestly,andalwayscarefully,tothe opening up of different futures (Connolly 2008). This existential faith finds ethicalandpoliticalimportinthinkingaboutmethods–understoodbroadly–asactive interventions in the taking-place of events, whether by affirming (generously, hopefully)becomingorwaiting(hospitably,anxiously)forthe‘tocome’(compareMccormack,thisvolume;Rose,thisvolume;Woodward,thisvolume).Whatthisworksharesisacommitmenttocritiqueasameansofcreatingturningpointsinthehereandnowandaconvictionthatinanygivensituationmoreisneededthancritiqueif(certain)eventsaretobetendedtoandcultivated.critiqueisnecessarybut always insufficient. It may be supplemented by a positive attachment to a world ofbecominginwhich‘whereverandwheneversomethingisgoingonthereisanevent’.hence the recent interest inenchantment (Bennett2001b)orgenerosity(diprose2001)astwosuchwaysofworkingonthe‘background’ofthoughtandlife(seeMccormack,thisvolume;darling,thisvolumeandRoe,thisvolume).itmay also be supplemented by an affirmative, perhaps even utopian, relation with events,everydayorotherwise, thatopenup tracesof radicallydifferent futures(anderson2006b;kraftl2007;Rose,2007;seeRose,thisvolume).

although usually considered to be very different, these ways of relating tothe event have a series of affinities with other styles of anticipatory thinking and acting,mostnotablytheattentiontodisruptionthatmarksqueergeographies(e.g.Brown2008),anemergentFeministandanti-racistliteratureattunedtotheforceofcorporealdifferencessuchasgender(colls2007),andtheexplosionofinterestinpoststructuralistparticipatorygeographiesseizedbythepotentialofvariousmicro-economicexperiments(gibson-graham2006).allareanimatedbythequestionofhowbetter futuresmaybebrought intobeing.likewise, theattention to theeventinnon-RepresentationTheoryopensupthequestionoffuturegeographiesin a way that returns us to the sense of affirmation and experimentation that we find in Foucault’s dream;

howthencanspacefunctiondifferentlyfromthewaysinwhichithasalwaysfunctioned? What are the possibilities of inhabiting otherwise? of beingextendedotherwise?of livingrelationsofnearnessandfarnessdifferently?(grosz2001,129).

openings

Toconclude: it seems fair to say thatnon-representational theoriesarea setofpredominantly, although not exclusively, poststructuralist theories that share anumber of questions or problems; how do sense and significance emerge from on-goingpracticalaction?;how,giventhecontingencyoforders,ispracticalaction

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




organised in more-than-human configurations?; and how to attend to events – to the ‘non’ that may lead to the chance of something different or a modification of an existing ordering? in this understanding, non-representational theorists mayinclude ethnomethodologists, (post)phenomenologists, deleuzians, corporealFeminists,andactor-network theorists,amongstothers. inotherwordswe takeseriously the multiplicity of theorists that Thrift (199�, 1999) identified with non-representational theory, and that when first using the term he uses the plural. This means that the problems and questions that non-representational theoriesposearenotonlybeingencounteredinhumangeography.Forexample,theyarealsobeing takenup in thedevelopmentof an immanentnaturalism inpoliticaltheory(connolly2008),anenchantedmaterialisminpoliticalecology(Bennett2001),andarenewedattentiontoaffectivelyimbuedexperienceinculturalstudies(seigworth2000).

Thefoursectionswehaveorganisedthebookaround–Life, Representation,EthicsandPolitics–aredesignedtodrawoutaseriesofproblems,questionsandimperativesthatdeepenourintroductoryremarks,engageinmoredepthwiththedebatesthathaveemergedaroundnon-representationaltheory,andpickupsomeof the threads we have only been able to touch on or hint at here. When we first invited contributions to the book we asked each author to address a specific concept, problemorquestionbywayofatheoryorsetoftheoriesthatwereimportanttonon-representationaltheories.asyouwillsee,eachoftheauthorsinterpretedthischallengedifferently.Wehavedeliberatelyretainedthispluralityoftone,styleandvoice.differencescoexistwithinnon-representationaltheory,andwewantedtoproduce a collection that affirmed this in both content and form. Indeed not all of thecontributorswouldagreewithhowwehavecharacterisednon-representationaltheoryinthisintroduction.Thesedifferencesmeanthateachsectionopensupasetoffurtherquestionsatatimewhennon-representationalconcernsareinthemidstof travellingacrossa rangeof sub-disciplineswithinhumangeography,changingasdifferentconcepts,sensibilitiesandmethodsaretakenupinrelationto different substantive and theoretical problems.13We hope the book makes amodestcontribution to thisprocess.Bywayofabriefsummaryofeachof thefoursections,wewanttoconcludethis‘primer’onnon-representationaltheoryby

13 see, for example, the emerging interest in everyday life, sensory registers andaffectinpoliticalgeography,particularlyworkonpopulargeopoliticsandthebiopoliticsof security (Macdonald,hughes, anddodds2009;adey2009;sidaway2009);nascentworkoncultural economy,work andaffect (Woodwardandlea2009;amin2007); anattention to the importance of visceral in consumption (hayes-conroy 2008); attemptstothinktherelationbetweenhealth,therapyandrelationalbodies(lea2008;conradson2005); the focusonmattersofbelief inworkon religion (holloway2006); thevariousways inwhich theurban is apprehendedas an assemblageandarchitecture as an event(kraftl2006;lathamandMccormack2004);andeffortstoenlivenchildren’sgeographies(hortonandkraftl2006;Woodyer2008).Thisisinadditiontothenowhugeamountofworkconcernedwith‘everydaypractices’ofoneformoranotherasreviewedbylorimer(2005;2007;2008).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




introducingthesetofissuesaroundtheencounterbetweennon-representationaltheoriesandhumangeographythatthechaptersaddress.

Parti–Life – isorganisedaroundthemovefrompracticestolife.itposesasetofquestionsthatresonatethroughoutthebookandfollowfromthethreesharedproblematicsorcommitmentsthatwehavearguednon-representationaltheoriesshare.howtoattendtotheindeterminacyandcomplexityoftheworld(greenhough,this volume)?how tounderstand the interminglingof different typesof livelymaterial bodies (Lorimer, this volume)? How do affects and forms of signification intermix in specific practical orders (Bissell, this volume)? And how to think the relation between life and the formation of subjectivities (Wylie, this volume)?Partii–Representation – exploreshowwemightthinkrepresentationonceourattentionturnstolife.itoffersfourpartiallyconnectedwaysofdevelopingtheinsightthatrepresentationsenactworlds;throughanattentiontolanguage-in-use(laurier, this volume); through an account of representation as transformationand differentiation (doel, this volume); via the event of language (dewsbury,thisvolume);andthroughaconcernwiththe‘failure’ofre-presentationandsothe‘failure’ofaworld(harrison,thisvolume).asawholePartiiaimstomakethepoint thatnon-representational theorydoesnotrefuserepresentationper se,onlyrepresentationastherepetitionofthesameorrepresentationasamediation.The hinge between the first half of the book and the second is an interview with nigelThriftinwhichhechartsthedevelopmentofhisowninterestinpractices,reflects on some of the key problematics that open up once one considers Life, andtheethicalandpoliticalimportofnon-representationaltheoriesinrelationtocontemporarycapitalismanddemocraticpolitics.

The second half of the book – Ethics and Politics – unfolds some of theimplications for ethics and politics of non-representational theory’s placingof ‘thought-in-action’, itsmaterialistanalysisof thesocial, and theattention toevents.innocasedoesapoliticsorethicssimplyunfoldfromasetoftheoreticalpropositions. In each chapter specific problems, concepts, methods or sensibilities arebroughtintoconnectionwithworldlyconcerns,whethertheybeukasylumseeker detention policy, the 1999 anti-capitalist protests in seattle, communitygardeninggroups,or theindustrializedmassslaughterofanimals.inEthics theconcern is with how to respond to social formations as they are in formation,wherethesocialincludesallmannerofmaterialbodies.ineachcasethisinvolves(but is not limited to) exploring the relations between the affirmative and critical (Mccormack, this volume) and experimenting with the corporeal sensibilitiesthat are enfolded into how we learn to affect and be affected by the world,includingrelationswithnon-humans(Roe, thisvolume),andacross recognisedsocialdifferences(darling,thisvolume;simonsen,thisvolume).ThechaptersinPoliticsbycontrastrevolvearoundaslightlydifferentproblematicofdifference;howtomakeadifferenceifweexpandwhatcountsaspoliticalandmovebeyondanexclusivelyrepresentationalpolitics?asonewouldexpect,themeansvary,andthissectioncontainssomeofthemostobvioustensionswithchaptersinprevioussections, but all presume that politics takes-place in a world of differences;

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




includingtheforceandmaterialityofsocialdifferences(saldanha,thisvolume),themultiplicityofpartiallyconnectedorders(hinchliffe,thisvolume);theopeninguptothenewthateventsandcertain‘abruptconditions’mayherald(Woodward,thisvolume);andthechangethefuturemaybring(Rose,thisvolume).

Writingan introductionsuchas this is like trying to ‘catch sea foam in thebreeze’.as thechapterswhich followdemonstrate,non-representational theoryis on-going, diversifying and disseminating, and so attempting to define such an oeuvreisalargelythanklesstask.andthisiswhy,inmanyrespects,wehavenotdoneso.Ratherinthisintroductionwehaveattemptedtosuggesttheanimatingconcerns, the conceptual, practical and existential commitments which bringthisworktolife,butwhichdonotdetermineordelimititsdevelopment.indeedrecognisableacrossallthreeelementsdiscussedaboveisacontinualprocessofde-limiting;ofthehuman,ofthesocial,ofthematerialandofthefuture.innon-representationaltheoryeachbecomesmultipleandmany,contingentandfragile,assembledandscattered.allthebetter,allthebetter.

references

adams,P.,hoelscher,s.andTill,k.(eds)(2001),Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies(Minneapolis:universityofMinnesotaPress).

adey,P.(2008),‘airports,mobility,andthecalculativearchitectureofaffectivecontrol’,Geoforum39,438-451.

— (2009), ‘Facing airport security: affect, biopolitics and the preemptivesecuritizationofthemobilebody’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space27(2),274-295.

adey, P. and Maddern, J. (2008), ‘editorial: spectro-geographies’, Cultural Geographies15,291-295.

amin,a.(2006),‘Thegoodcity’,Urban Studies43,1009-1023.—(withThrift,n)(2007),‘cultural-economyandcities’,Progress in Human

Geography31(2),143-161.anderson, B. (2004), ‘Time-stilled space-slowed: how boredom matters’,

Geoforum35(6),739-754.— (2006a), ‘Becoming and being hopeful: towards a theory of affect’,

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35(5),733-752.—(2006b),‘Transcendingwithouttranscendence:utopianismandanethosof

hope’,Antipode38(4),691-710.—(2009),‘affectiveatmospheres’,Emotion, Society and Space2(2),77-81.anderson, B. and Tolia-kelly, d. (2004), ‘Matter(s) in social and cultural

geography’,Geoforum35(6),669-675.anderson, B. and harrison, P. (2006), ‘Questioning affect and emotion’, Area

38(3),333-335.anderson,B.andWylie,J.(2009),‘ongeographyandmateriality’,Environment

and Planning A41(2),318-335.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




ash, J. (forthcoming), ‘architectures of affect: anticipating and manipulatingthe event in processes of videogame design and testing’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space.

Barnett, c. (2008), ‘Political affects in public space: normative blind-spots innon-representational ontologies’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 33(2),186-200.

Benjamin,W.(1992),Illuminations.Trans.Zohn,h.(london:FontanaPress).—(1997),One Way Street and Other Writings.Trans.Jephcott,e.andshorter,

k.(london:Verso).Bennett,J.(2001),The Enchantment of Modern Life: Attachments, Crossings, and

Ethics (Princeton:PrincetonuniversityPress).— (2010), Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things (durham, nc and

london:dukeuniversityPress).Bingham, n. (1996), ‘object-ions: from technological determinism towards

geographiesof relations’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space14(6),635-657.

—(2008),‘slowingthingsdown:lessonsfromthegMcontroversy’,Geoforum39(1),111-122.

Bissell, d. (2008), ‘comfortable bodies: sedentary affects’, Environment and Planning A40(7),1697-1712.

— (2009), ‘obdurate pains, transient intensities: affect and the chronically-painedbody’,Environment and Planning A 41(4),911-928.

Bondi,l.(2005),‘Makingconnectionsandthinkingthroughemotions:betweengeography and psychotherapy’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers30,433-448.

Bourdieu,P.(1977),Outline of a Theory of Practice(cambridgeandnewyork:cambridgeuniversityPress).

Brown,g.(2008),‘ceramics,clothingandotherbodies:affectivegeographiesofhomoeroticcruisingencounters’,Social and Cultural Geography9(8),915-932.

Butler,J.(1990),Gender Trouble(london:Routledge).—(1993),Bodies that Matter(london:Routledge).—(1997),Excitable Speech(london:Routledge).caputo, J. (2007), The Weakness of God (Bloomington and london: indiana

universityPress).clark,a.(1997),Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again

(london:MiTPress).clark, T. (2005), The Poetics of Singularity. The Counter-Culturalist Turn in

Heidegger, Derrida, Blanchot and the Later Gadamer (edinburgh:edinburghuniversityPress).

clark,n.(2007),‘livingthroughthetsunami:Vulnerabilityandgenerosityonavolatileearth’,Geoforum38(6),1127-1139.

clough, P. (ed.) (2007), The Affective Turn (durham, nc and london: dukeuniversityPress).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




colls,R.(2007),‘Materialisingbodilymatter:intra-actionandtheembodimentof“Fat”’,Geoforum38,353-365.

connolly, W. (2002), Neuropolitics: Thinking, Culture, Speed (Minneapolis:universityofMinnesotaPress).

— (2008), Capitalism and Christianity, American Style (durham, nc andlondon:dukeuniversityPress).

conradson, d. (2005), ‘landscape, care and the relational self: therapeuticencountersinsouthernengland’,Health and Place11,337-348.

cook,i.andTolia-kelly,d.(forthcoming),‘Materialgeographies’,inhicks,d.andBeaudry,M.(eds),Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies (oxford:oxforduniversityPress).

cosgrove,d.andJackson,P.(1987),‘newdirectionsinculturalgeography’,Area 19,95-101.

cosgrove, d. (1989), ‘geography is everywhere: culture and symbolism inhumanlandscapes’,ingregory,d.andWalford,R.(eds),Horizons in Human Geography(Basingstoke:Macmillan),118-135.

crang,P.(1994),‘“it’sshowtime!”ontheworkplacegeographiesofdisplayinarestaurantinsoutheastengland’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12,675-704.

cresswell,T.(1996),In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology and Transgression(Minneapolis:universityofMinnesotaPress).

—(2003)‘landscapeandtheobliterationofpractice’inanderson,k.,domosh,M.,Pile,s.andThrift,n.(eds),The Handbook of Cultural Geography (london:sage),269-281.

dastur,F.(2000),‘Phenomenologyoftheevent:Waitingandsurprise’,Hypatia 15(4),178-189.

decerteau,M.(1984),The Practice of Everyday Life.Trans.Rendall,s.(Berkeley,ca:universityofcaliforniaPress).

delanda,M.(2006),A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity (londonandnewyork:continuum).

deleuze, g. and guattari, F. (1987), A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. Massumi, B. (Minneapolis: university of MinnesotaPress).

deleuze,g.(2001),‘immanence:alife’.Trans.Boyman,a.indeleuze,g.Pure Immanence: Essays on a Life(cambridge:MiTPress).

—(withParnet,c.)(2006),Dialogues II.Trans.Tomlinson,h.andhabberjam,B.(london:continuum).

derrida,J.(2003),‘autoimmunity:realandsymbolicsuicides–adialoguewithJacques derrida’, in Borradori, g. (ed.), Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida(chicagoandlondon:universityofchicagoPress),85-136.

—(2007),‘acertainimpossiblepossibilityofsayingtheevent’.TransWalker,g.Critical Inquiry33(Winter),441-461.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




dewsbury, J-d(2000), ‘Performativityand theevent:enactingaphilosophyofdifference’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18,473-496.

—(2003),‘Witnessingspace:knowledgewithoutcontemplation’,Environment and Planning A35(11),1907-1933.

— (2007), ‘unthinking subjects:alain Badiou and the event of thought inthinkingpolitics’,Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers32(4),443-459.

dewsbury,J-d,harrison,P.,Rose,M.andWylie,J.(2002),‘enactinggeographies’,Geoforum32,437-441.

duncan,J.s.(1990),The City as Text: The Politics of Landscape Interpretation in the Kandyan Kingdom(cambridge:cambridgeuniversityPress).

diprose,R.(2001),Corporeal Generosity: On Giving with Nietzsche, Merleau-Ponty, and Levinas(newyork:suny).

edensor,T.(2005),Industrial Ruins: Space, Aesthetics and Materiality(london:Berg).

Foucault, M. (1997a), ‘The masked philosopher’. Trans, hurley, R. et al. inRabinow,P.(ed.),Michel Foucault –Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth(london:Penguin),321-328.

—(1997b),The History of Sexuality: The Care of the Self.Trans.hurley,R.(london:Penguin).

gasché,R.(1999),Of Minimal Things: Studies on the Notion of Relation(stanford:stanforduniversityPress).

gertz,c.(1973),The Interpretation of Cultures (newyork:BasicBooks).gibson, J.J. (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Boston:

Houghton Mifflin).gibson-graham,J-k.(2006),Post-Capitalist Politics(Minneapolis:universityof

MinnesotaPress).gregson, n. and Rose, g. (2000), ‘Taking Butler elsewhere: performativities,

spatialities and subjectivities’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18(4),433-452.

grosz,e.(2001),Architecture from the Outside: Essays on Virtual and Real Space(newyork:MiTPress).

hägerstrand,T.(1973),‘Thedomainofhumangeography’inchorely,R.J.(ed.),Directions in Geography (andover:Methuen),67-87.

—(1982),‘diorama,pathandproject’,Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie73,323-39.

hayes-conroy, a. (2008), ‘Taking back taste: Feminism, food, and visceralpolitics’,Gender, Place, and Culture15(5), 461-473.

haraway,d. (1991),Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature(london:FreeassociationBooks).

harman, g. (2009), The Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics (london:Re.press).

harrison, P. (2000), ‘Making sense: embodiment and the sensibilities of theeveryday’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18,497-517.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




—(2007),‘“howshallisayit?”Relatingthenonrelational’,Environment and Planning A39(3),590-608.

—(2008),‘corporealremains:vulnerability,proximity,andlivingonaftertheendoftheworld’,Environment and Planning A40,423-445.

—(2009),‘intheabsenceofpractice’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space27(6),987-1009.

heidegger,M.(1962),Being and Time.Trans. Macquarrie,J.M.andRobinson,e.(oxford:Blackwell).

hinchliffe, s. (1996), ‘Technology, power and space: the means and ends ofgeographiesoftechnology’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space14(6),659-682.

—(2007),Geographies of Nature: Societies, Environments, Ecologies (london:sage).

hinchliffe, s. and Whatmore, s. (2006), ‘living cities: towards a politics ofconviviality’,Science as Culture15(2),123-138.

holloway, J. (2006), ‘enchanted spaces:The séance, affect andgeographiesofreligion’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(1), 182-187.

horton,J.andkraftl,P.(2006),‘Whatelse?somemorewaysofthinkingaboutanddoingchildren’sgeographies’,Children’s Geographies,4(1),69-95.

ingold, T. (2000), The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill (london:Routledge).

Jackson,P. (2000), ‘Rematerialising social andculturalgeography’,Social and Cultural Geography1(1),9-14.

kraftl,P.(2006),‘Buildinganidea:Thematerialconstructionofanidealchildhood’,Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers31(4),488-504.

— (2007), ‘utopia, performativity, and the unhomely’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space25,120-143.

latham,a.(1999),‘Thepowerofdistraction:distraction,tactility,andhabitinthe work of Walter Benjamin’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space17(4),451-473.

— (2003), ‘Research, performance, and doing human geography: somereflections on the diary-photo diary-interview method’, Environment and Planning A35(11),1993-2017.

latham,a.andMccormack,d(2004),‘Movingcities:rethinkingthematerialitiesofurbangeographies’,Progress in Human Geography28(6),701-724.

latour, B. (1993), We Have Never Been Modern. Trans. Porter, c. (london:harvesterWheatsheaf).

—(1999),Pandora’s Hope: An Essay on the Reality of Science Studies.Trans.sheridan,a.(cambridge,Ma:harvarduniversityPress).

—(2005),Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory(oxford:oxforduniversityPress).

law,J.(1993),Organising Modernity(london:Blackwell).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




lea,J.(2008),‘Retreatingtonature:rethinking“therapeuticlandscapes”’, Area 401,90-98.

ley, d. and samuels, M.s. (1978), ‘overview’, in lay, d. and samuels, M.s.(eds), Humanistic Geography: Prospects and Problems (london: croomhelm),19-21.

lim,J.(2007),‘Queercritiqueandthepoliticsofaffect’,inBrowne,k.,lim,J.andBrown,g.(eds),Geographies of Sexualities(aldershot:ashgate),53-67.

lingis,a.(1994),Foreign Bodies(london:Routledge).— (1996), Sensation: Intelligibility in Sensibility (atlantic highlands, nJ:

humanitiesPress).lorimer, h. (2005), ‘cultural geography: the busyness of being ‘more-than-

representational’,Progress in Human Geography29(1),83-94.— (2006), ‘herding memories of humans and animals’, Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space24,497-518.—(2007),‘culturalgeography:worldlyshapes,differentlyarranged’,Progress

in Human Geography 31(1),89-100.—(2008),‘culturalgeography:nonrepresentationalconditionsandconcerns’,

Progress in Human Geography32(4),551-559.Macdonald,F.,hughes,R.anddodds,k. (2009), ‘envisioninggeopolitics’, in

Macdonald,F.,dodds,k.andhughes,R.(eds)Observant States: Geopolitics and Visual Culture(london:i.B.Tauris).

Marston,s.,Jonesiii,J-PandWoodward,k.(2005),‘humangeographywithoutscale’,Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30(4),416-432.

Massey,d.(1997),‘aglobalsenseofplace’,inBarnes,T.andgregory,d.(eds),Reading Human Geography(london:arnold),315-323.

—(2005),For Space(london:sage).Massumi, B. (2002a), ‘introduction: like a thought’. in Massumi, B. (ed.), A

Shock to Thought: Expression after Deleuze and Guattari(londonandnewyork:Routledge),xiii-xxxix.

—(2002b),Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation (durham,ncandlondon:dukeuniversity).

Mccormack,d. (2002), ‘apaperwithan interest in rhythm’,Geoforum33(4),469-485.

—(2003),‘aneventofgeographicalethicsinspacesofaffect’,Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers28(4),488-507.

—(2006),‘Fortheloveofpipesandcables:aresponsetodeborahThien’,Area38(3),330-332.

—(2008),‘engineeringaffectiveatmospheresonthemovinggeographiesofthe1897andréeexpedition’,Cultural Geographies15(4),413-430.

McFarlane, c. (2009), ‘Translocal assemblages: space, power and socialmovements’,Geoforum40(4),561-567.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1963), Phenomenology of Perception. Trans. smith, c.(london:Routledge).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




Mels,T. (ed.) (2004),Reanimating Places: A Geography of Rhythms (london:ashgate).

Merriman, P. (2007), Driving Spaces: A Cultural-Historical Geography of England’s M1 Motorway(oxford:Blackwell).

Murdoch, J. (1998), ‘The spaces of actor-network theory’, Geoforum 29, 357-374.

nash,c.(2000),‘Performativityinpractice’,Progress in Human Geography24,653-664.

Parker, a. and kosofsky sedgwick, e. (1995) (eds), Performativity and Performance(londonandnewyork:Routledge).

Paterson,M.(2006),‘Feelthepresence:Thetechnologiesoftouch’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space24(5),691-708.

—(2007), The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects and Technologies (oxford:Berg).

Phelan,P.(1993),Unmarked: The Politics of Performance (london:Routledge).—(1997),Mourning Sex: Performing Public Memories(london:Routledge).Pile,s.(2005),Real Cities: Modernity, Space and the Phantasmagorias of City

Life(london:sage).Pred,a. (1977), ‘The choreography of existence: comments on hagerstrand’s

time-geographyanditsusefulness’,Economic Geography53,207-221.Puar,J.(2007),Terrorist Assemblages(durham,ncandlondon:dukeuniversity

Press).Rajchman, J. (1991), Philosophical Events (new york: columbia university

Press).Relph,e.(1976),Place and Placelessness(london:Pion).Rose,g.(1993),Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge

(cambridge:Polity).Rose,M.(2002),‘landscapesandlabyrinths’,Geoforum 33,455-467.—(2006),‘gatheringdreamsofpresence:aprojectfortheculturallandscape’,

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space24(4),537-554.—(2007),‘Theproblemofpowerandthepoliticsoflandscape:stoppingthe

greatercairoringroad’,Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers32(4),460-477.

saldanha,a. (2005), ‘Trance andvisibility at dawn:Racial dynamics ingoa’sravescene’,Social and Cultural Geography6(5),707-721.

— (2006), ‘Reontologising race: the machinic geography of phenotype’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space24(1),9-24.

— (2007), Psychedelic White: Goa Trance and the Viscosity of Race(Minneapolis:universityofMinnesotaPress).

seamon,d.(1979),A Geography of the Lifeworld. Movement, Rest, and Encounter(newyork:stMartin’sPress).

searle,J.(1983),Intentionality. An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind(cambridge:cambridgeuniversityPress).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




sedgwickkosofsky,e.(2003),Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity(durham,nc:dukeuniversityPress).

seigworth,g.(2005),‘Banalityforculturalstudies’,Cultural Studies14(2),227-268.

—(2003),‘Fashioningastave,or,singinglife’,inslack,J.(ed.),Animations of Deleuze and Guattari(newyork:Peterlang),75-105.

shotter,J.(1995),‘Talkofsaying,showing,gesturing,andfeelinginWittgensteinandVygotsky’.availableat:http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/virtual/wittvyg.htm.(lastaccessed21october2009).

sidaway, J. (2009), ‘shadowson thepath:negotiatinggeopoliticsonanurbansection of Britain’s southWest coast Path’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space27(6),1091-1116.

simpson,P.(2008),‘chroniceverydaylife:Rhythmanalysingstreetperformance’,Social and Cultural Geography9(7),807-829.

slocum,R. (2008), ‘Thinking race throughfeministcorporeal theory:divisionsand intimacies at the Minneapolis Farmers’ Market’, Social and Cultural Geography 9(8),849-869.

stewart,k.(1996),A Space on the Side of the Road: Cultural Poetics in an ‘Other’ America(Princeton:PrincetonuniversityPress).

—(2007),Ordinary Affects(london:dukeuniversityPress).strohmayer, u. (1998), ‘The event of space: geographic allusions in the

phenomenologicaltradition’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 16,105-121.

swanton,d. (2008), ‘The forceof race’,Dark Matter.available at: http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/2008/02/23/the-force-of-race/.(lastaccessed20october2009).

Taussig, M. (1993), Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses(london:Routledge).

Tolia-kelly, d. (2006), ‘affect – an ethnocentric encounter?: exploring the“universalist” imperative of emotional/affectual geographies’, Area 38(2),213-217.

Thien,d.(2005),‘afterorbeyondfeeling?aconsiderationofaffectandemotioningeography’,Area37(4),450-456.

Thrift, n. (1983), ‘on the determination of social action in space and time’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space1,23-57.

—(1996),Spatial Formations(london:sage).—(1999),‘stepstoanecologyofplace’,inMassey,d.,allen,J.andsarre,P.

(eds),Human Geography Today(cambridge:PolityPress),295-321.—(2004),‘intensitiesoffeeling:towardsaspatialpoliticsofaffect’,Geografiska

Annaler86B,57-78.—(2008),Non-Representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect(londonand

newyork:Routledge).Tuan,y-F.(1977),Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience(Minneapolis:

universityofMinnesotaPress).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




Whatmore,s. (2002),Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces(london:sage).

Whitehead,a. (2004 [1920]), The Concept of Nature (newyork: PrometheusBooks).

Woodward,k. andlea,l. (2009), ‘geographiesof affect’, insmith,s.,Pain,P.,Marston,s.andJonesiii,J-P(eds),The Handbook of Social Geography(london:sage).

Woodyer,T.(2008),‘Thebodyasresearchtool:embodiedpracticeandchildren’sgeographies’,Children’s Geographies6(4),349-362.

Williams,R.(1981),Culture(london:FontanaPress).Wylie, J. (2002), ‘anessayonascendingglastonburyTor’,Geoforum 32(4),

441-455.— (2005), ‘a single day’s walking: narrating self and landscape on the

southWestcoastPath’,Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers30(2),234-247.

—(2006),‘depthsandfolds:onlandscapeandthegazingsubject’,Environment and Planning D: Society and Space24(4),519-535.

—(2007), ‘ThespectralgeographiesofW.g.sebald’,Cultural Geographies14(2)171-188.

—(2009),‘landscape,absenceandthegeographiesoflove’,Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 34.

The Promise of Non-Representational Theories

Documents