Abstract
Büscher offers a useful review of the convergence between strands of post-Marxian and more-than-human praxis alongside an assertion of the points of distinction between these approaches. This response agrees that environmental geography needs to define the human but outlines three points of disagreement, relating to: Büscher’s elevation of self-consciousness as the defining human property; his desire to maintain the Nature-Society divide; and his treatment of basic alienation. It argues for a more capacious understanding of the human that is defined neither in opposition to Nature, nor taken as universally ‘fallen’ from a past moment of unalienated existence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
