What is 'Cosmic' about Urban Climate Politics? On Hesitantly Re-staging the Latour-Beck Debate for STS
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › fagfællebedømt
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 tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
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