Abstract
Attachment has not been a central concern for cultural geographers for some time – a consequence, I have argued, of process ontologies that emphasise becoming over being. Ben Anderson's article proves me wrong by providing a compelling framework for how we might approach attachment from within these ontological terms. While I point out some areas of overlap and agreement, I also argue that process ontologies are limited in their capacity to understand why attachment happens: from whence – in a world of perpetual and dynamic unfolding – does the desire for attachment come from?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
