Attachment has not been a central concern for cultural geographers for some time – a consequence, I have argued, of process ontologies that emphasise becoming over being. Ben Anderson's article proves me wrong by providing a compelling framework for how we might approach attachment from within these ontological terms. While I point out some areas of overlap and agreement, I also argue that process ontologies are limited in their capacity to understand why attachment happens: from whence – in a world of perpetual and dynamic unfolding – does the desire for attachment come from?
AndersonB (2023) Forms and scenes of attachment: A cultural geography of promises. Dialogues in Human Geography13(3): 392–409.
2.
BerlantL (2011) Cruel Optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
3.
BissellDRoseMHarrisonP (2021) Negative Geographies: Exploring the Politics of Limits (Cultural Geographies + Rewriting the Earth). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
4.
HarrisonP (2007) How shall I say it…? Relating the non-relational.Environment and Planning A39(3): 590–608.
5.
LatourB (2013) An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
McCormackDP (2014) Refrains for Moving Bodies: Experience and Experiment in Affective Spaces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
7.
RoseM (2014) Negative governance: Vulnerability, biopolitics and the origins of government. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers39(2): 209–223.
8.
RoseM (2018) Consciousness as claiming: Practice and habit in an enigmatic world.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space36(6): 1120–1135.
9.
RoseMBissellDHarrisonP (2021) Negative geographies. In: BissellDRoseMHarrisonP (eds) Negative Geographies: Exploring the Politics of Limits. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1–38.
10.
SecorAJKingsburyP (2021) A Place More Void. Cultural Geographies + Rewriting the Earth. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
