What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics? On Hesitantly Re-staging the Latour-Beck Debate for STS

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics? On Hesitantly Re-staging the Latour-Beck Debate for STS. / Blok, Anders.

I: Science & Technology Studies, Bind 33, Nr. 4, 2020, s. 50-59.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Blok, A 2020, 'What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics? On Hesitantly Re-staging the Latour-Beck Debate for STS', Science & Technology Studies, bind 33, nr. 4, s. 50-59. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.84500

APA

Blok, A. (2020). What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics? On Hesitantly Re-staging the Latour-Beck Debate for STS. Science & Technology Studies, 33(4), 50-59. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.84500

Vancouver

Blok A. What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics? On Hesitantly Re-staging the Latour-Beck Debate for STS. Science & Technology Studies. 2020;33(4):50-59. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.84500

Author

Blok, Anders. / What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics? On Hesitantly Re-staging the Latour-Beck Debate for STS. I: Science & Technology Studies. 2020 ; Bind 33, Nr. 4. s. 50-59.

Bibtex

@article{e63540127d8e4316b9219f8b5e4cb372,
title = "What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics?: On Hesitantly Re-staging the Latour-Beck Debate for STS",
abstract = "While Bruno Latour{\textquoteright}s criticism of Ulrich Beck{\textquoteright}s cosmopolitanism helped set the stage 15 years ago for the highly productive research approach of cosmopolitics, including as concerns urban ecological politics, a nagging doubt remains that more blood was spilled than necessary in the exchange. In this short discussion piece, I re-stage the Latour-Beck debate as part of on-going inquiries into the morethan-human politics of climate adaptation in Copenhagen, exploring what exact senses of {\textquoteleft}cosmos{\textquoteright} might be helpful in making sense of this increasingly common-place situation. At issue, I suggest, is the question of what it means to say that {\textquoteleft}natures{\textquoteright}, in the plural, are put at stake in such settings. Far from any synthesis, in turn, I conclude that scholars in STS and beyond might do well to extend a shared hesitation towards both sides of the debate - cosmopolitics, cosmopolitanism - and thus take the opportunity to share unresolved conceptual tensions in the service of posing better problems. ",
keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, Latour-Beck debate, cosmopolitics, cosmopolitanism, natures",
author = "Anders Blok",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.23987/sts.84500",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "50--59",
journal = "Science Studies",
issn = "0786-3012",
publisher = "Suomen tieteen- ja teknologiantutkimuksen seura ry",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics?

T2 - On Hesitantly Re-staging the Latour-Beck Debate for STS

AU - Blok, Anders

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - While Bruno Latour’s criticism of Ulrich Beck’s cosmopolitanism helped set the stage 15 years ago for the highly productive research approach of cosmopolitics, including as concerns urban ecological politics, a nagging doubt remains that more blood was spilled than necessary in the exchange. In this short discussion piece, I re-stage the Latour-Beck debate as part of on-going inquiries into the morethan-human politics of climate adaptation in Copenhagen, exploring what exact senses of ‘cosmos’ might be helpful in making sense of this increasingly common-place situation. At issue, I suggest, is the question of what it means to say that ‘natures’, in the plural, are put at stake in such settings. Far from any synthesis, in turn, I conclude that scholars in STS and beyond might do well to extend a shared hesitation towards both sides of the debate - cosmopolitics, cosmopolitanism - and thus take the opportunity to share unresolved conceptual tensions in the service of posing better problems.

AB - While Bruno Latour’s criticism of Ulrich Beck’s cosmopolitanism helped set the stage 15 years ago for the highly productive research approach of cosmopolitics, including as concerns urban ecological politics, a nagging doubt remains that more blood was spilled than necessary in the exchange. In this short discussion piece, I re-stage the Latour-Beck debate as part of on-going inquiries into the morethan-human politics of climate adaptation in Copenhagen, exploring what exact senses of ‘cosmos’ might be helpful in making sense of this increasingly common-place situation. At issue, I suggest, is the question of what it means to say that ‘natures’, in the plural, are put at stake in such settings. Far from any synthesis, in turn, I conclude that scholars in STS and beyond might do well to extend a shared hesitation towards both sides of the debate - cosmopolitics, cosmopolitanism - and thus take the opportunity to share unresolved conceptual tensions in the service of posing better problems.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - Latour-Beck debate

KW - cosmopolitics

KW - cosmopolitanism

KW - natures

U2 - 10.23987/sts.84500

DO - 10.23987/sts.84500

M3 - Journal article

VL - 33

SP - 50

EP - 59

JO - Science Studies

JF - Science Studies

SN - 0786-3012

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 237511003