Inconvenience, ambivalence, and abolition: A politics of attachment and detachment in geography

14Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In this commentary, we explore the idea of detachment that we see as central to Anderson's notion of attachment but that nevertheless does not take centre stage in the paper. We situate detachment not as attachment's antithesis, opposite, or negative, but as its structural condition and as irretrievably interwoven with attachment. Through Berlant's recent writing, we foreground the notion of ambivalence as a way to think about the complexity of attachment–detachment and to foreground politics and differences in these processes. Then, we draw on abolitionist writers like Gilmore and Lewis to highlight the complicated intersection of structural and affective attachment and to consider the possible intellectual and political stakes of pursuing a geography of attachment.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cockayne, D., & Ruez, D. (2023, November 1). Inconvenience, ambivalence, and abolition: A politics of attachment and detachment in geography. Dialogues in Human Geography. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206231151415

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free