Addressing the question ‘does using the term “Other” in relation to geographies of love flatten out difference?’ we argue that, while it may have this potential, it can also recognize collectivity (which is not necessarily the same as uniformity) among people. Politics involves working out which differences matter, when and where. Critiquing oppositional categories such as Self/Other (also love/hate, universal/particular) may do more to prompt critical understandings of love as spatial, relational and political rather than simply throwing out the term ‘Other’.
BergL (2012) Geographies of identity I: Geography – (neo)liberalism – white supremacy. Progress in Human Geography36(4): 508–517.
2.
InwoodJFJ (2013) Love and the Other: A response to Morrison et al. (2012). Progress in Human Geography.
3.
KatzC (1998) Lost and found in the posts: Addressing critical human geography. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space16: 257–278.
4.
LonghurstRJohnstonLHoE (2009) A visceral approach: Cooking ‘at home’ with migrant women in Hamilton, New Zealand. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers34(3): 333–345.
5.
MorrisonCJohnstonLLonghurstR (2012) Critical geographies of love as spatial, relational and political. Progress in Human Geography. doi: 10.1177/0309132512462513.
6.
Tolia-KellyDP (2010) The geographies of cultural geography I: Identities, bodies and race. Progress in Human Geography34(3): 358–367.
