The paper offers a new model of politics adequate for the Anthropocene epoch. It uses the concept of ‘heterotopia’ to argue for the environmental potential of Arendtian political philosophy. The adopted meaning of heterotopia combines its Foucauldian (as interpreted by L. De Cauter and M. Dehaene) and medical sources. It is argued that, thus understood, the concept can be applied to the Arendtian idea of judgment. In this capacity, the concept of heterotopia is both politically foundational and environmentally relevant. It helps us maintain the idea of politics as humanely construed activity, while recognising that political actors are also natural beings, whose actions draw on and affect the non-human world.
ArendtH.1990. On Revolution. London: Penguin Books.
2.
ArendtH.1992. Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
3.
ArendtH.1998. The Human Condition. Second edition. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
4.
ArendtH.2006. Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. London: Penguin Books.
5.
BowringF.2014. ‘Arendt after Marx: Rethinking the dualism of nature and world’. Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society26 (2): 278–90. Crossref.
6.
ChapmanA.2007. ‘The ways that nature matters: The world and the earth in the thought of Hannah Arendt’. Environmental Values16 (4): 433–45. Crossref.
7.
CrowellS.2012. ‘Why is ethics the first philosophy? Levinas in phenomenological context’. European Journal of Philosophy23 (3): 564–88. Crossref.
8.
CurtisK.1999. Our Sense of the Real: Aesthetic Experience and Arendtian Politics. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
9.
De CauterL. and DehaeneM.. 2008. ‘The space of play: Towards a general theory of heterotopia’. In DehaeneM. and De CauterL. (eds), Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society, pp. 87–102. London and New York: Routledge.
10.
DietzM.G.1995. ‘Feminist receptions of Hannah Arendt’. In HonigB. (ed.), Feminist Interpretations of Hannah Arendt, pp. 17–50. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
11.
FerraraA.2008. The Force of the Example: Explorations in the Paradigm of Judgment. New York: Columbia University Press.
12.
FoucaultM.2008. ‘Of other spaces’. Translated by DehaeneM. and De CauterL.. In DehaeneM. and De CauterL. (eds), Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society, pp. 13–29. London and New York: Routledge.
13.
HailwoodS.A.2000. ‘The value of nature's otherness’. Environmental Values9 (3): 353–72. Crossref.
14.
HonigB.1995. ‘Towards an agonistic feminism: Hannah Arendt and the politics of identity’. In HonigB. (ed.), Feminist Interpretations of Hannah Arendt, pp. 135–66. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
15.
JohnsonP.2021. ‘Bibliographies’. Heterotopian Studies: Michel Foucault's Ideas on Heterotopia. www.heterotopiastudies.com/bibliography/ (accessed 6 January 2021).
16.
KantI.1987. The Critique of Judgment. Translated by PluharW.S.. Indianapolis, IN and Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company.
17.
KristevaJ.2001. Hannah Arendt: Life Is a Narrative. Translated by CollinsF.. Toronto, Buffalo, NY and London: University of Toronto Press.
18.
MeyerJ.2001. Political Nature: Environmentalism and the Interpretation of Western Thought. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
19.
MouffeCh. 2005. On the Political. London and New York: Routledge.
20.
OttP.2009. ‘World and earth: Hannah Arendt and the human relationship to nature’. Ethics, Place & Environment: A Journal of Philosophy & Geography12 (1): 1–16. Crossref.
21.
PitkinH.1981. ‘Justice: On relating private and public’. Political Theory9 (3): 327–52. Crossref.
22.
SjöholmC.2015. Doing Aesthetics with Arendt: How to See Things. New York: Columbia University Press.
23.
SohnH.2008. ‘Heterotopia: Anamnesis of a medical term’. In DehaeneM. and De CauterL. (eds), Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society, pp. 41–50. London and New York: Routledge.
24.
VoiceP.2013. ‘Consuming the world: Hannah Arendt on politics and the environment’. Journal of International Political Theory9 (2): 178–93. Crossref.
25.
WenigB.M.2009. ‘Ear and temporal bone’. In WeidnerN., CoteR., SusterS. and WeissL., Modern Surgical Pathology, vol. 1, pp. 295–325. Second edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, Elsevier.
26.
WhitesideK.H.1998. ‘Worldliness and respect for nature: An ecological application of Hannah Arendt's conception of culture’. Environmental Values7 (1): 25–40. Crossref.
27.
YoungI.M.2001. ‘Asymmetrical reciprocity: On moral respect, wonder, and enlarged thought’. In BeinerR. and NedelskyJ. (eds), Judgment, Imagination and Politics: Themes from Kant and Arendt, pp. 205–28. Lanham, MD and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
28.
ZdybelJ. and ZdybelL.. 2013. ‘Wprowadzenie. Filozofia polityki czy filozofia poli-tyczna? [Introduction: The philosophy of politics or political philosophy?]’. In ZdybelJ. and ZdybelL. (eds), Filozofia Polityki Współcześnie [Contemporary Political Philosophy], pp. 7–48. Kraków: Universitas.
29.
ZerilliL.M.G.2016. A Democratic Theory of Judgment. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
