| 000 | 01384nab a2200241 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 999 |
_c10612 _d10612 |
||
| 003 | OSt | ||
| 005 | 20200915111041.0 | ||
| 007 | cr aa aaaaa | ||
| 008 | 200915b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 100 |
_aKrishnan, Sneha _930204 |
||
| 245 | _aSpeaking from other demonic bases of partiality | ||
| 260 |
_bSage _c2019 |
||
| 300 | _aVol 9, Issue 2, 2019:(154-157 p.) | ||
| 520 | _aAs Simandan (2019) argues, partiality and contingency are key to a politically attuned human geography. My commentary takes the author up on his suggestion that commentators examine the political implications of his framework. Critically, I use Sylvia Wynter’s analytic of ‘demonic ground’ to critique Simandan’s ‘demonic geography’ that underlies the epistemic framework he presents in this article. In doing so, this commentary focuses on the author’s conceptualization of intersectionality and diversity, arguing instead for a more fundamental critique of the geopolitical location of post-humanist thought itself. | ||
| 650 |
_adecolonial theory _930205 |
||
| 650 |
_aSylvia Wynter _930206 |
||
| 650 |
_arace _930207 |
||
| 650 |
_aintersectionality _930200 |
||
| 650 |
_adiversity _930208 |
||
| 773 | 0 |
_010527 _915376 _dSage Publications Ltd., 2019 _tDialogues in human geography. _w(OSt)20840795 _x2043-8214 |
|
| 856 | _uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/2043820619850269 | ||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cART |
||