Abstract
Political projects are often grounded in theoretical analyses that present themselves as adequate to the world they hope to transform. This is true of many projects on the right as well as many on the left. In contrast, J. K. Gibson-Graham refuse any such notion of adequacy. Their refusal substantially complicates the ethical dimensions of academic practice, especially for those scholars who seek to promote projects of economic emancipation and justice. Gibson-Graham's practice provides a challenging vision of how we can engage ethically a world we cannot control. It is a practice based on what theologian Sharon Welch calls an “ethic of risk” rather than an “ethic of control.”
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
