Suchergebnisse

There's little doubt that a variety of CDR techniques will be employed worldwide in the decades and centuries to come. Together, these techniques will alter the character and functioning of the biosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, pedosphere, and atmosphere. More locally, they will have immediate impacts on people and place, within diverse national state contexts. However, for the moment CDR exists more in the realm of discourse than reality. Its future roll-out in many and varied forms will depend on a series of discussions in the governmental, commercial, and civic spheres. Metaphor will be quite central to these formative discussions. Metaphors serve to structure perceptions of unfamiliar phenomena by transferring meaning from a recognized "source" domain to a new "target" domain. They can be employed in more or less felicitous, more or less noticeable, more or less defensible ways. Metaphors help to govern future action by framing present-day understandings of a world to come. To govern metaphor itself may seem as foolhardy as attempting to sieve water or converse with rocks. Yet by rehearsing some old lessons about metaphor we stand some chance of responsibly steering its employment in unfolding debates about CDR techniques and their practical governance globally. This Perspective identifies some key elements of metaphor's use that will require attention in the different contexts where CDR techniques presently get (and will in future be) discussed meaningfully. Various experts involved in CDR development and deployment have an important, though not controlling, role to play in how it gets metaphorized. This matters in our age of populism, rhetoric, misinformation, and disinformation where the willful (mis)use of certain metaphors threatens to depoliticize, polarize, or simplify future debates about CDR. What is needed is "post-normal" discourse where high stakes decisions made in the context of epistemic uncertainty are informed by clear reasoning among disparate parties whose values diverge.

In this paper recent considerations of the human subject and of the nature and uses of theory are convened around the work of Marxist theorist David Harvey. This is done to contest two prevailing views of his work and to explore critically two alternative readings. The first view suggests that Harvey is exclusively a theorist of the capitalist space economy; against this it is suggested that he offers one of the most ambitious readings of subjectivity within human geography. The second view suggests that Harvey is a 'modern' theorist, whose preoccupation with economy and class leads him into the perils of theoretical authoritarianism, exclusivity, and abstraction; against this it is suggested that Harvey's Marxism claims to be intrinsically reflexive. More particularly, the thesis that there is an essential, rather than contingent, relation between Harvey's theorisation of 'the subject of capital' and his own practices as a theorist is explored: given that Harvey claims 'the subject of capital' is but one subject-position, to what extent, it is asked, is he in practice aware of the limits of his own theoretical propositions? At the same time, an examination of the degree to which Harvey's reading of subjectivity is sufficiently cogent to contribute to an ecumenical, 'post-modern' project to make sense of subjection and agency within contemporary Western societies is presented.

The authors argue for the necessary, but not privileged, place of geography in understanding the nature of wage labor in the capitalist world. Approaching their topic from Marxist, neo-Marxist, and Institutionalist perspectives they draw a portrait of the social relations of labor and draw attention