The network has two research agendas
(1) The consequences of the spatial turn for politics
There has been a ‘spatial turn’ in the social sciences and humanities. New institutions, personalities and ontology are seeking to change the way we think about space and place. From the different works of Deleuze, Latour, Thrift and Massey; to Harvey, Connolly, Stengers, Bennett and Soja, in the wake of globalisation new ontologies all move to question and denaturalise territorial entities. There has been a marked shift toward a less demarcated, hierarchical understanding of the spatial. This is no longer conceived in terms of pre-defined territorial containers. Rather, new geographical metaphors have come to the fore, dominating discussion today:- interdependence’, ‘complexity’, ‘chaos’, ‘multiplicity’, ‘post-territoriality’, ‘hybridity’, ‘global order’, and so on. This is demonstrated in the theories developed in many University Departments today. Other new material practices, such as the internet and media developments, seem only to further turn people’s gaze towards the intensive interrogation of the spatial, which we are presently witnessing.
In short, the older concepts of space are being seriously challenged. But the practical consequences of this paradigm shift for politics are unexplored. We therefore seek to force the question:-
How is the spatial turn disciplining the way we think about politics today?
Not wishing to support or attack the spatial turn, we instead take it as a focus of investigation. Which means taking an interest in practical consequences of the turn; taking to task, interrogating and investigating the political implications of new spatial ontologies, institutions, forces and personalities.
More complete details of this vision can be found in:-
(2) What is radical politics today?
What is the nature of radical politics today? What is thought of as radical politics at this moment, what is not, and why? How should we describe its character? In order to explore these questions, this project is not concerned with what radical politics was in the past, or what it should be in the future. It does not prescribe abstract theories of what radical politics could be, or lament history. It is instead concerned with the moment – with documenting, cataloguing, analysing and understanding what the character of radical politics actually is now.
The results are being published in a paperback book for the general public and student audiences. As well as in the Radical Politics Today magazine.
