A icle
P og ess in Human Geog aphy
2023, Vol. 47(4) 481–499
© The Au ho (s) 2023
A icle euse guidelines:
sagepub.com/jou nals-pe missions
DOI: 10.1177/03091325231156928
jou nals.sagepub.com/home/phg
Towa ds a pos - ounda ional
geog aphy: Spaces o nega i i y,
con ingency, and an agonism
F iede ike Landau-Donnelly
Radboud Uni e si ei , Nijmegen, Ne he lands
Lucas Pohl
Ha enCi y Uni e si y Hambu g, Hambu g, Ge many; Humbold -Uni e si ¨
a zu Be lin, Be lin, Ge many
Abs ac
The ela ion be ween poli ics, on ology, and space emains one o he mos con es ed conce ns in human
geog aphy, o en leading o a dismissal o on ology in a o o he poli iciza ion o space. In con as , his a icle
mobilizes pos - ounda ionalism o p opose a poli ical on ology o space. A e e iewing geog aphe s’en-
gagemen s wi h poli ics, pos -poli ics and he poli ical, he a icle demons a es how a pos - ounda ional
geog aphy adically up oo s geog aphic unde s andings o poli ical and socio-spa ial eali ies. G ounded upon
pa ame e s o nega i i y, con ingency, and an agonism, he a icle equips geog aphe s o g apple wi h he
c umbling ounda ions o an unce ain p esen , and unknown u u es.
Keywo ds
poli ical on ology, pos - ounda ionalism, spa ial heo y, nega i i y, con ingency, an agonism
I In oduc ion
Con empo a y c i ical human geog aphy has long
discussed he inex icable in e ela ions be ween
space, poli ics, and he poli ical. Fo many con-
empo a y geog aphe s, i migh seem di ficul o
imagine how space would come in o being wi hou
any influence o poli ical agency o a ious so s
(e.g., legal p ac ices exe cised by law, cons uc ion
buildings, encing, zoning, p ohibi ion as well as
mo e bo om-up app oaches such as spa ial occu-
pa ion and in e en ion, o pe o mances and p o es s
in public space e c.). Inspi ed by Ma xis , eminis ,
and pos -s uc u alis social heo y, geog aphe s om
he 1970s onwa ds inc easingly u ned away om
unde s anding space as igid and immobile, and
s a ed d awing a en ion o he socio-ma e ial p o-
duc ion o space (Duncan and Ley, 1982;Ha ey,
1996;G ego y, 1994;Le eb e, 1991;Massey, 1994;
Pee , 1998;Smi h, 1984;Soja, 1989). This shi om
he “being”o space owa ds i s “becoming”was
oo ed in an an i-on ological s ance, acco ding o
which any on ologiza ion o space would lead o a
p oblema ic objec ifica ion, eifica ion, and na u al-
iza ion o space.
1
Hence, he ques ion o wha space
“is,”which undoub edly ho e s a he hea o
Co esponding au ho :
Lucas Pohl, Ha enCi y Uni e si y Hambu g, Henning-
Vosche au-Pla z 1, Hambu g 22297, Ge many.
Email: lucas.pohl@hcu-hambu g.de
geog aphy, and cogna e spa ial disciplines ( o a
summa y, see Ki chin, 2009), was e-posi ioned o-
wa ds he p ocessual genesis o space h ough pol-
i ics. I was he eby a gued ha an on ologiza ion o
space would come a he cos o losing sigh o he
poli ical p ac ices ha co-cons i u e space (see
Jo onen and H¨
akli, 2016;Pie ce and Ma in, 2015).
Ki s en Simonsen (2004: 1337) g asps his p oblem
o on ologizing space, o spa ial elemen s, as ollows:
By pu ing spa ial elemen s such as ne wo ks, flows,
and fluids fi s and aising hem o he s a us o
“on ology”[…] one ends o eimagine spa ial o m as
sel - e e en ial and indi e en o social con en . The
unin ended consequence o such a mo e migh be a
na u aliza ion o “spa ial”p ocess […] This, o cou se,
is a poli ical as well as a heo e ical p oblem…
We e e se his connec ion be ween on ology and
indi e ence, ia he ope o poli ical di e ence—
based on a dis inc ion be ween “poli ics”and “ he
poli ical”(see Ma cha , 2007,2010)— o ske ch a
poli ical on ology o space de i ed om nega i i y,
con ingency, and an agonism. We conside space as
always-al eady poli ical in he sense ha “ he poli i-
cal,”as we shall define i below, akes, claims, o
occupies space in e e -changing ways. I hus e eals
he cons i u i e con ingency o any spa ial o m whe e
“poli ics”is loca ed. We ( e)di ec analy ical a en ion
o he missing link be ween he poli ical, space, and
on ology. While p e ious engagemen s wi h he s a us
o on ology in c i ical geog aphy ha e pa ially
o eg ounded he p oblema ic na u aliza ion o spa ial
p ocess and o m, a poli ical on ology o space un-
de sco es he i esol able es lessness o bo h space
and on ology. The poli ical hence appea s as a con-
s an eminde , and dis up i e po en ial o any spa ial
o ma ion. As Mus a a Dikeç (2005: 172) poin s ou , i
is no me ely he p esence o powe ha makes space
poli ical, bu a he he “momen s o in e up ion” ha
poin o cons an ly con es ed powe imbued in space.
To app oach space on ologically, we ollow Dikeç’s
(2005: 184) assump ion ha “ he poli ical”has “no
p ope place,”and ace his lack o loca ion, o ab-
sence o ounda ion, wi h wha we call apos -
ounda ional geog aphy.
In his endea o , we fi s e iew exis ing accoun s
on engagemen s wi h pos - ounda ional hough in
c i ical human geog aphy by emphasizing how he
pos - ounda ional di e ence be ween poli ics and he
poli ical has mani es ed in a pa icula conce n wi h
he pos -poli ical (Sec ion II). Subsequen ly, we
ske ch a pos - ounda ional geog aphy o be a icu-
la ed om adical nega i i y, con ingency, and an-
agonism (Sec ion III). Nega i i y, he e, unde lines
he non-essen ial, p oduced and ela ional dimension
o any spa ial configu a ion. Con ingency, acco d-
ingly, is bo h an on ological and poli ical condi ion
ha a ec s he p oduc ion, pe cep ion and sense o
place, space and powe . Las ly, an agonism poin s o
he i educibly conflic ual oo s o any space o place,
ega dless o , o beyond scale. Nega i i y, con in-
gency, and an agonism a e pe se no new o geog-
aphe s, bu each ha e long ye di e en ly de eloped
his o ies in geog aphical hinking. Howe e , wha is
a he new is ende ing he implici connec ion be-
ween hese h ee heo e ical opes explici . Hence,
ou aim in his pape is o kno oge he exis ing
geog aphical knowledge o ad ance his pos -
ounda ional geog aphy. A e in oducing hese
h ee dimensions o a pos - ounda ional geog aphy,
we conclude by ad oca ing a conflic -a uned ge-
og aphy a uned o an expansi e, an agonis ic un-
de s anding o “ he poli ical”and he e e -p esen
possibili y o ans o ma i e change (Sec ion IV).
II Loca ing pos - ounda ionalism in
human geog aphy
Pos - ounda ionalism has become a p ominen ana-
ly ic in poli ical heo y and philosophy o g asp he
concep ual di e en ia ion be ween la poli ique
(poli ics) and le poli ique ( he poli ical). S emming
om hinke s such as Alain Badiou (Badiou, 2018
[1985]), E nes o Laclau (1990), Claude Le o
(1988), Chan al Mou e (2005), Jacques Ranciè e
(1999), o Sla oj
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek (1999), pos - ounda ional
poli ical heo y, on he one hand, engages wi h he
on ic ealm o poli ics, which becomes mani es qua
ins i u ions, laws, egula ions, p ohibi ions, and
ou ines. Poli ics cen e a ound no ions o o de ,
s abili y, and hegemony o shape and secu e a
482 P og ess in Human Geog aphy 47(4)
socie y’s“exis ence”(Ma cha , 2013). On he o he
hand, pos - ounda ional poli ical heo y p ojec s he
poli ical as he on ological po en ial o ans o -
ma ion and adical change. The poli ical bo h ex-
ceeds and sub e s he logic o poli ics by dis up ing,
challenging, and disloca ing exis ing hegemonic
o ms. A ising ou o such “poli ical di e ence”
(Ma cha , 2007), pos - ounda ionalism e ol es
a ound he e e -ongoing dynamics o e- and dis-
a icula ion o poli ics o expose i as a adically
con ingen cons ella ion ha is cons an ly pe mea ed,
and ende ed inconsis en , by he poli ical.
2
As
syn hesized by Mou e (2005: 9), “poli ics”is con-
side ed “ he se o p ac ices and ins i u ions h ough
which an o de is c ea ed,”while “ he poli ical”
e e s o “ he dimension o an agonism.”
3
The e is a endency in pos - ounda ional poli ical
heo y o acknowledge “space as a mode o poli ical
hinking”(Dikeç, 2012). Laclau (1990: 18), o in-
s ance, a gues ha e e y space o discou se, iden i y,
and socie y e e s o such a “ adical ou side” ha is
esponsible o bo h p o iding meaning o wha is
inside (o a ce ain social o spa ial o de ), and si-
mul aneously in e ening in o, o dis u bing, ha
e y inside. E e y social eali y, o inside, is sub-
sequen ly based on “o he ing,”so o speak, which
p esupposes a di e ence o he adical ou side.
Acco dingly, e e y social ela ion u ns ou o be an
inhe en ly spa ial ela ion. As pu by Laclau and
Mou e (2001: 111): “The i esoluble in e io i y/
ex e io i y ension is he condi ion o any social
p ac ice.”Social eali y appea s only agains he
backg ound o an ou side ha is bound o i s inside
wi hou being educible o i . Ca e ul no o lapse
in o an an i- ounda ional app oach, pos -
ounda ionalism, he e o e, hinks “ he ou side in”
(S a hausen, 2009), which means o insis ha p ocesses
o des abiliza ion, decen e ing, and dissemina ion a e
pa o e e y on ological cons ella ion. The di e en ia-
ion be ween wha belongs o eali y (and wha does no )
is no fixed bu e ol es om cons an ension. I is his
ension e e y (social) eali y elies on, ega dless o i s
scale: “i is as i , a e e y s age, he same opposi ion, he
same undecidable al e na i e Inside/Ou side, epea s i -
sel unde a di e en exponen ”(
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek, 1994: 17). This
inside-ou side-in e ela ion also chimes wi h poli ical
di e ence, as he p oduc ion o ou sides is conside ably
poli ical in i s e ec o p oducing inclusions and ex-
clusions o people, places, and hings. In sum, hese
insides and ou sides, o inclusions and exclusions, e-
spec i ely, esona e wi h poli ical di e ence in ha he
inside co ela es wi h he logic o poli ics, while he
ou side co ela es wi h he poli ical.
4
While space is he e o e no new o pos -
ounda ional heo y, pos - ounda ional heo y is also
no en i ely new o geog aphe s. In ac , a numbe o
schola s engaged wi h his s and o poli ical heo y in
ecen yea s (Blakey, 2021a;Dikeç, 2005,2012,2015;
Fea he s one and Ko , 2012;Hannah, 2022;Landau
e al., 2021;Landau and Pohl, 2021;Meye , 2012;
Spa ke, 2005;Swyngedouw, 2007,2010,2013,
2018). One o he mos p ominen ways o using pos -
ounda ional and spa ial hinking in human geog aphy
and ela ed spa ial disciplines, such as u ban planning,
can be subsumed in he deba e abou he “pos -po-
li ical”(Deas, 2014;Douce e, 2020;Hannah, 2016;
Rosol, 2014;Swyngedouw, 2007,2009,2011,2013,
2015,2018;Swyngedouw and Wilson, 2014;
Williams and Boo h, 2013). Pos -poli ics can be ead
as a pos - ounda ional concep due o i s buil -in
sensi i i y o he di e ence be ween poli ics and he
poli ical. Pos -poli ics s ems om heo is s such as
Ranciè e (1999) and
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek (1999) and desc ibes a
significan shi o unde s anding he possibili ies and
concu en impossibili ies o poli ical ac ion. His o -
ically oo ed in he ise o (neo)libe alism, pos -
poli ics ela es o he dissolu ion o he s a e as an
independen o closed sphe e o poli ical decision-
making (i.e., go e nmen ) owa ds a mo e flexible and
consensus-o ien ed no ion o poli ics in e wined wi h
“ he ma ke ”and o he non-s a e ac o s (i.e., go e -
nance). In he ein o pos -poli ics, p ocesses o p i-
a iza ion and de egula ion lead o he ou sou cing o
s a e unc ions and an up- and down-scaling o
go e nance echniques (Swyngedouw, 2018). When
he ealm o poli ics is limi ed o me e ques ions o
managemen , indi idual igh s, and p ocedu es o
pa icipa ion, he e is no “p ope ,”o no longe any
space o he poli ical. In such pos -poli ical imes,
mo e han e e , he ques ion is: “Whe e is he poli -
ical?”(Swyngedouw, 2014). This claim implies ha
he poli ical, and wi h i , poli ical heo y, is no
some hing ha simply “is”bu , again, some hing ha
akes place o does no ake place.
Landau-Donnelly and Pohl 483
Wi h a conc e e u ban ocus, schola s ha e d awn
a en ion o he pa icula ways o how, and i a all,
he poli ical akes place in he ci y. Following E ik
Swyngedouw’s (2007) accoun o he “pos -poli ical
ci y,”u ban schola s ha e c i icized how egimes o
neolibe al u ban powe and manage ial go e nance
exclude, occlude, su oca e, o colonize he poli ical.
A a ie y o empi ical case s udies ha e demon-
s a ed how pos -poli ical u ban go e nance has been
con es ed by ci ic s akeholde s and alliances (see
Da idson and I eson, 2014;Holden, 2011;Legacy,
2016;Legacy e al., 2018;McClymon , 2011;
Milling on, 2016;Oos e lynck and Swyngedouw,
2010). C ys al Legacy (2016) examines a con en-
ious anspo planning p ocess in Melbou ne, in
which ci izen ini ia i es ques ioned a seemingly
“done deal”and hus b oad he p eca ious na u e o
pos -poli ical consensus o he o e. Na e
Milling on’s (2016) accoun o he London io s
2011, deemed “disappoin edly apoli ical”(ibid.:
707) by commen a o s om media and poli ics,
d aws a en ion o hip-hop cul u e as a space whe e
ac o s who we e no expec ed o become poli icized
spon aneously joined o wo k agains he pos -
poli ical ci y. Hence, beyond a me e obsession
wi h consensus in u ban planning and policy
(Allmendinge and Haugh on, 2012;Gualini and
Bianchi, 2015;Hillie , 2003;Kühn, 2021;Me zge
e al., 2014;Pløge , 2004,2018), he pos -poli ical
ci y b oadens he scope o conflic analysis owa ds
ques ions o how ci ies can se e as s ages o he
poli ical (see Da idson and I eson, 2021;En igh ,
2017). As Dikeç and Swyngedouw (2017: 10) pu i ,
he ci y un a els momen s o he poli ical as “always
placed, localized and in a iably ope a i e in public
space.”Acco dingly, he ci y, in a pos - ounda ional
sense, “is”no hing bu sedimen a ion o specific
hegemonic cons ella ions o physical, ma e ial, and
symbolic powe (Roskamm, 2017). On ologically
speaking, he ci y becomes possible ia a emp s a
es ablishing o de , g ound, o eason (i.e., ollowing he
logic o poli ics) and simul aneously impossible as a
con inuously disloca ed and disloca ing ealm o on-
ological lack and an agonism (i.e., ac ualizing he logic
o he poli ical).
Ano he , ye connec ed, s and in which “ he pos -
poli ical”has been p ominen ly discussed in human
geog aphy and ela ed disciplines conce ns he de-
ba es a ound clima e poli ics. In line wi h he wo k o
he pos -poli ical ci y, he e ha e been inc easing
a emp s in ecen yea s o c i ically e alua e he
discou ses on clima e change as p o oundly de-
poli icized (Be ini, 2013;Blakey, 2021b;Cela a and
Sanna, 2012;Goeminne, 2012;Kenis and Lie ens,
2014,2015;Kenis and Ma hijs, 2014a;MacG ego ,
2014;Machin, 2013;Maeseele, 2015;Pepe mans
and Maeseele, 2016;Pohl and Swyngedouw, 2023;
Swyngedouw, 2011,2013,2015;Weisse and
Mülle -Mahn, 2016). Gio anni Be ini (2013)
poin s o he depoli icizing implica ions o apoca-
lyp ic clima e na a i es, which cons uc he “cli-
ma e e ugee”as a acialized and po en ially
h ea ening figu e used o mobilize a poli ics o ea .
Anneleen Kenis and E ik Ma hijs (2014b) discuss he
poli iciza ion s a egies o Clima e Jus ice Ac ion,a
g ass oo s mo emen in es ed in adically imagining
ecologically ai clima e u u es. Mo e gene ally,
geog aphic wo ks on he (de)poli iciza ion o clima e
change o mula e a adical c i ique o ca as ophic
clima e imagina ies s a ing ha he la e conju e a
populis spec e o “ he people.”Tha signifie ames
he clima e ca as ophe as a c isis ha “e e yone”is
esponsible o and has o espond o, he eby
masking he conside able an agonis ic di isions and
inequali ies ha di ide socie y and space
(Swyngedouw, 2010).
While a ious schola s ha e shown how he pos -
ounda ional concep o he pos -poli ical can be
used as an analy ical lens o engage geog aphically
ela ed ma e s, including spaces o u ban and cli-
ma e poli ics, o he s ha e c i icized he pos -
poli ical as a diagnosis (Be e idge and Koch,
2016,2017;Cha e on e al., 2013;da Schio and
Van Heu , 2021;Fea he s one, 2013;Kenis, 2019;
McCa hy, 2013;No h, 2010;U y, 2011). Re-
ga ding he pos -poli ical ci y, Ross Be e idge and
Philippe Koch (2016:31)claim ha i is hisdi-
agnosis i sel (and no he socio-geog aphical con-
di ion) ha diminishes he possibili ies o he u ban as
a poli ical space o esis ance and emancipa ion,
whe eby he “bina y unde s anding o he eal
poli ical/poli ics as police”would hus nega e
“ he in-be weenness and con ingency o ac ually
exis ing u ban poli ics.”Wi h ega d o clima e
484 P og ess in Human Geog aphy 47(4)
poli ics, John U y (2011: 90) c i icizes he pos -
poli ical as a “new o hodoxy” ha dis ega ds he
mani old mani es a ion o en i onmen al mobi-
liza ion and p o es , such as Clima e Jus ice
Ac ion and T ansi ion Towns (see No h, 2010;
Fea he s one, 2013;Cha e on e al., 2013).
O e all, wha uni es he c i ical accoun s o he
“pos -poli ical hesis”is ha hey see he la e as
leading o an o e emphasis o he ins i u ional
o eclosu e (o he poli ical) by con empo a y
go e nance egimes (o poli ics). This migh lead
o and encou age pos -poli ical hinke s o ig-
no e, o a leas unde es ima e, he mul iple o ms
o con es a ion and poli iciza ion (da Schio and
Van Heu , 2021:3).
E en hough i has become ashionable in e-
cen yea s o c i icize he pos -poli ical as a sel -
ulfilling p ophecy, his c i ique isks u ning his
concep in o a s aw man (Dikeç, 2017). Ins ead o
conside ing he pos -poli ical as he absolu e end,
o ul ima e dea h o he poli ical, we insis on he
pos - ounda ional legacy o pos -poli ics by em-
phasizing he adically on ological implica ions o
poli ical di e ence (Ma cha , 2007). The “pos -
poli ical hypo hesis,” he e o e, does no p oclaim
ha he poli ical anishes al oge he (because
ha is on ologically speaking impossible), bu ha
i is insu ficien ly a icula ed wi hin pa icula
his o ical-geog aphical se ings. The poli ical
canno ake place (i.e., as i is con inuously dis-
a owed, ep essed, displaced) unde pos -poli ical
condi ions. Howe e , due o i s on ological
scope, he poli ical emains “a pe manen possi-
bili y”(Dikeç, 2017: 51); i haun s poli ics e en
unde he mos de as a ing pos -poli ical
egime. Ul ima ely, as Swyngedouw (2018:58)
pu s i : “ he spaces o appea ance whe eby he
poli ical is emb yonically mani es ed, can ne -
e heless no be o eclosed ully.”
III Towa ds a
pos - ounda ional geog aphy
A e ske ching some o human geog aphy’s en-
gagemen s wi h pos -poli ical hinking, which ha e
undoub edly shaped ecen c i ical unde s andings o
poli ical mobiliza ion, poli iciza ion, and depoli ici-
za ion, we no e ha pos - ounda ional hough has
p ima ily, i no exclusi ely, been add essed by ge-
og aphe s h ough looking a he di e ence be ween
poli ics and he poli ical. Howe e , his has no ye
exhaus ed he ull po en ial o wha pos -
ounda ionalism has o o e o geog aphe s (see
Landau e al., 2021).
5
We wonde : Wha a e he
conc e e in e connec ions and p eca ious spa ial
ounda ions o a pos - ounda ional on ology o
space? How do poli ics and he poli ical become
“enmeshed”(Blakey e al., 2022) in he con en ious
p oduc ion o space? In o ging answe s o hese
ques ions, we p opose he ollowing h ee dimen-
sions o a pos - ounda ional geog aphy: nega i i y,
con ingency, and an agonism. No ably, he e is
nei he a clea hie a chy no ch onological pa h
dependency be ween hese h ee aspec s. Ye , a pos -
ounda ional geog aphy, as we see i , can only
eme ge wi hin spa ial heo y and empi ical esea ch
when hese h ee aspec s—howe e , une enly—
coalesce. Fo example, some p oduc ions o space
o eg ound i s an agonis ic quali y, making i pain-
ully clea o i s use s ha conflic ules his space.
O he spaces a e angibly con ingen —exuding o all
o i s use s ha his space could also be o he wise
(e.g., i esou ces o spa ial adap a ion we e sup-
plied). The concep ual alence o hese h ee di-
mensions is o be e equip geog aphe s o g asp
conflic s ha migh al eady linge in spa ial se ings,
and o ad ance a mo e adical, and in ha sense
poli ical unde s anding o space.
1. Nega i i y and space
Nega i i y ine i ably linge s in a pos - ounda ional
geog aphy. Richa d G. Smi h (2003: 563) poin s ou
ha “space is olded in o e e y hing”; his all-
encompassing no ion o space is no able o g asp
wha cons i u es space (and wha does no , o ha
ma e ). In con as , a pos - ounda ional geog aphy
depa s om he assump ion ha space is also, maybe
e en mo e impo an ly, olded in o and ou o
no hingness.
To be e g asp his ela ionship be ween space
and nega i i y, we u n o a p ominen c i ique o
Landau-Donnelly and Pohl 485

his ela ionship p oposed by Do een Massey. In
he book Fo Space,Massey (2005) o e s a
powe ul c i ique o he pos -s uc u alis en-
gagemen wi h space qua nega i i y. Besides
u he engaging wi h Laclau, whom Massey
c i icized ea lie o his supposed depoli iciza ion
o space (Massey, 1992),
6
she ex ends he c i ique
o o he hinke s, such as Michel de Ce eau.
These hinke s a e, in Massey’s iew, unp omising
companions o geog aphe s since hey ega d
“ ime”as he only ue ca ego y o “ he poli ical”
and assign o “space”only a subo dina e, apoli -
ical ole. In doing so, Massey eads hinke s like
de Ce eau as e en ually ending up in con adic-
ions, since ime is also he essen ial d i ing o ce
o a capi alis mode o socie y. While Massey’s
c i ique o space as apoli ical is widely known, she
(Massey, 2005: 11) also has been a c ucial ad-
oca e o a di e ence-a uned and adically open
concep ion o space. De Ce eau (De Ce eau,
1988: 95) himsel s a es: “Finally, he unc ion-
alis o ganiza ion, by p i ileging p og ess (i.e.,
ime), causes he condi ion o i s own possibili y –
space i sel – o be o go en; space hus becomes
he blind spo in a scien ific and poli ical ech-
nology.”Massey (Massey, 2005: 46) conside s
his passage as “i onic”because de Ce eau, by
bina izing space and ime, allows space o become
a esidual ca ego y, which is neglec ed in a o o
ime and ea ed as poli ically u ile. While ime is
conside ed a sub e si e and poli ical elemen ,
space comes o s and o ep esen a ion, s asis,
closu e, and domina ion (Massey 2005: 29).
A significan elemen o de Ce eau’s spa ial
heo y, indeed he elemen ha makes him a pos -
ounda ional spa ial hinke in he fi s place (see
Dikeç, 2005;G o h, 2021), is neglec ed in Massey’s
c i ique. He dis inguishes no only be ween ime and
space bu also be ween “place”(lieu) and “space”
(espace). While place e e s o an o de ing
s uc u e o dis ibu ion ha assigns elemen s a
“p ope ”and unique loca ion, which defines and
fixa es hem, hus p o iding s abili y, space, in
con as , “occu s as he e ec p oduced by he
ope a ions ha o ien i , si ua e i , empo alize i ,
and make i unc ion in a poly alen uni y o
conflic ual p og ams o con ac ual p oximi ies …
In con adis inc ion o he place, i [space] has hus
none o he uni oci y o s abili y o a ‘p ope ’”
(De Ce eau, 1988: 117). Fo de Ce eau, i is no
space ha p o ides s abili y and o de , bu place—
and his di e ence be ween place and space needs
o be emphasized om a geog aphic s andpoin .
Space has a mobilizing, empo alizing, chal-
lenging, and hus conflic ual quali y ha canno be
ecognized and con ained by he o de o place, o
he place o o de , i you will. I is only om his
s andpoin ha we can unde s and he meaning o
Massey’s s a emen acco ding o which space is
conside ed “ he blind spo in a scien ificand
poli ical echnology.”
Such a no ion o space no only helps us o g asp
he ela ionship be ween space and he poli ical,
which Massey (2005: 38) conside s as ge ing los in
he wo ks o hinke s like Laclau o de Ce eau (we
u he elabo a e on his poin below). Ra he , i also
allows us o econside he ela ionship be ween
space and nega i i y mo e b oadly, and wi h impli-
ca ions o geog aphic heo y-building and empi ical
esea ch. I we do no acknowledge space as blind
spo , spa ial analysis uns he isk o mo phing in o a
sel - ulfilling analysis and diagnosis o space as i has
been concei ed p io o empi ical in es iga ion.
Space as “blind spo ”— hus as absence, lack,
nega i i y— om he s andpoin o place is one o he
co ne s ones o a pos - ounda ional on ology o
space. A pos - ounda ional app oach ad oca es o a
concep o “space as he p oduc o nega i e spacing,
h ough he abjec ion o he o he ”(Massey, 2005:
55)—mo e p ecisely, h ough he abjec ion o place
qua eali y and o de . As Oli e Ma cha (2007:
139-140) emphasizes:
The cons i u i e ou side o space is wha is adically
di e en wi h espec o he sys em—some hing which
canno be explained om he inne logic o he sys em
i sel , o which has ne e had any p esc ibed place in
he opog aphy. Ye , i occu s wi hin such opog aphy as
i s disloca ion, dis u bance, o in e up ion: as e en .
This unde s anding o space poin s o he p emise
ha no e e y hing can be placed wi hin a sys em,
o de , o logic o poli ics. Some hing always emains
ou o sigh , ou o place, cons i u i ely ou side. Bu
486 P og ess in Human Geog aphy 47(4)
ins ead o lea ing his ou side unno iced, a pos -
ounda ional geog aphy insis s ha his ou side
makes i sel p esen inside h ough disloca ion,
dis u bance, in e up ion, an e en . Such “nega i e
spacings”do no ha e o be la ge in scale, o
physically isible. Va ious wo ks in geog aphy en-
gaged he figu e o he ghos o highligh he pow-
e ul p esence o nega i i y, o absence, in space. As
a me apho o he unp edic able, e osi e, and
some imes auma ic conno a ions o human mem-
o y, he ghos has been adop ed as a ciphe o
haun ing ha blends he di ec , ma e ial p esence o
disc e e places wi h implici , imma e ial absences
ha linge in hose places (Edenso , 2005;F e s,
2013;Hook, 2005;Landau and Pohl, 2021;Madde n
and Adey, 2008;Pile, 2005;Pohl, 2020;Robe s,
2013;Sea le, 2020;Wylie, 2007). Pos - ounda ional
poli ical heo y made use o Jacques De ida’s (1994)
concep ualiza ion o he ghos o spec e in o de o
engage wi h he haun ing quali ies o he poli ical
wi hin he ealm o poli ics (Ma cha , 2007). The
ghos ly, hus, illus a es bo h he symbolical and (im)
ma e ial mani es a ions o he poli ical. Pos -
ounda ional geog aphy, in a way, allows us o
on ologize he no ion o haun ing in and o (poli ical)
space. Hence, a nega i e on ology o space emb aces
he ghos as an e e -p esen ye flicke ing by-p oduc
o e e y p oduc ion o space. Spaces a e ne e
me ely wha hey “a e”, bu always also wha hey a e
no . While “place”, in de Ce eau’s e ms, is con-
side ed as he posi i e ealm o fixi y, su ace, and
e i o y, “space”s ands o a nega i e ealm con-
s i u ed by mo e fluid and ela ional bounda ies.
Space, he e o e, a e ses he an asies o spa ial
o de (ing) by poin ing o he mul iple and incom-
mensu able spa ial componen s si ua ed in one and
he same place (Blum and Seco , 2011). Space dis-
misses he allegedly solid g ounds o opes such as
“ci y”,“s a e”,o “wo ld”and ins ead opens he doo
o he spec al p esen -absences ha unse le opo-
g aphical figu a ions (Seco , 2013). The pos -
ounda ional c edo is hus: “A he hea o e e y
si ua ion [o place], as he ounda ion o i s being,
he e is a ‘si ua ed’ oid [o space], a ound which is
o ganized he pleni ude (o he s able mul iples) o
he si ua ion in ques ion”(Badiou, 2001: 68; see
Pohl, 2021).
Pos - ounda ionalism, he e o e, depa s om a
e e sal o Leibniz’ amous o mula: i s mos
pe inen ques ion is no “why is he e some hing
a he han no hing,”bu “why is he e (also)
no hing and no (jus ) some hing?”(
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek, 2017:
17). In his sense, a pos - ounda ional geog aphy
ela es o he mo e ecen “ u n” owa ds he im-
plica ions o nega i i y in human geog aphy
(Bissell e al., 2021;Dekeyse and Jellis, 2020;
Dekeyse e al., 2022;Kingsbu y and Seco , 2021).
Howe e , pos - ounda ionalism g apples wi h he
si ua edness o nega i i y di e en ly han nega i e
geog aphies. While he la e p oposed by Da id
Bissell e al. (2021) ea nega i i y in “non ela-
ional” e ms, o pos - ounda ional geog aphies,
ela ionali y is a he adicalized and can ne e
ully be e ased. Nega i i y “is no simply ‘ou
he e’as a cosmic p inciple o an objec i e ea u e
o he wo ld”(Ma cha , 2018: 187), bu unc ions
as an immanen oid linge ing as a by-p oduc o
pa icula socio-symbolic o de s, places, o poli-
ics. Fo pos - ounda ionalis s, any socio-spa ial
o ma ion i e ocably exis s in ela ion o ha
which i is no (i.e., i s own nega ion o ou side).
This o eg ounds hese o ma ions as nei he s able
no comple e, bu as always pa ial and open o
change. To spa ialize his di e ence be ween
nega i e and pos - ounda ional geog aphies, one
could mobilize he dis inc ion be ween Sch anke
(bo de ) and G enze (limi ), which Hegel b ings up
in Wissenscha de Logik (Hegel, 1986: 144-145,
own ansla ion).While a limi ela es o an u e ly
ex e nal o he , “bo de s a e in e nal, hey bo de on
an ou side which lu ks wi hin he inside”(Dola ,
2016:68;seePohl, 2019). While nega i e geog-
aphies a e conce ned wi h he “ques ion o limi s”
(Rose e al., 2021: 1), a pos - ounda ional geog-
aphy engages he ques ion o bo de s, which se e
as dema ca ions o sedimen a ions o ounda ions
ha a e adically cons uc ed and con ingen . In
sum, he adical nega i i y o a pos - ounda ional
geog aphy g asps he nega i e as an e e -p esen
ou side which lu ks wi hin he inside, hus con-
s an ly dis u bing he ull, fini e, o enclosed
eme gence o a place, lea ing any spa ial con-
s uc ion c ucially unfinished, ung ounded, and o
a deg ee ung oundable.
Landau-Donnelly and Pohl 487
2 Con ingency and space
Ano he pilla o a pos - ounda ional geog aphy
is he i educible con ingency o any socio-spa ial
o -poli ical o ma ion. Con ingency indica es, e y
oughly, ha hings, spaces, and places could always
be o he wise, bu also elsewhe e o elsewhen.In e ms
o Reecia O zeck and Laam Hae’s(2020) ecen e-
iew o con ingency in (legal) geog aphy, a pos -
ounda ional no ion o con ingency migh quali y as
“s ong” a he han “weak.”While we ag ee wi h
hei claim ha “all o social li e may no be con ingen
bu he e a e aspec s o he social wo ld ha a e he
esul o acciden and agency”(O zeck and Hae, 2020:
834), we do conside con ingency as a p ima ily
on ological ca ego y which is being cons ic ed by
on ic (i.e., conc e e, e e y day, angible) o ms and
p ac ices o hegemonic powe , exploi a ion, and in-
equali y. Acco dingly, social-spa ial o ma ions and
p ocesses a e always a p oduc o his o ically specific
poli ical, economic, and cul u al no ms, ye also
p o ide adical openings o ans o ming hese e y
hegemonic se ings. In ha sense, con ingency poin s
o he unp edic abili y and ongoing e e sibili y o
socio-his o ical hegemony. Con ingency has his o i-
cally implied di e en meanings o poli ical i ue,
isk, and necessi y (Dillon, 2007). Wha Da id
Delaney (2015) calls “go e ning h ough con in-
gency”poin s bo h o he conc e e limi s p o ided by
sedimen ed ules, laws, policies, obs acles on he one
hand, and he e e -p esen possibili y o challenging,
e e sing, e o ming, abandoning hese egula o y
amewo ks o powe on he o he .
As a ope in pos -mode n and pos -s uc u alis
geog aphies, con ingency appea s as a c ucial
epis emological s a ing poin ha accoun s o
an i-de e minis ic and an i-essen ialis no ions o
space (see Soja, 1989;Doel, 2000;Massey, 2005).
While Ma xis geog aphe s ha e c i icized no ions
o con ingency, a guing ha hey po en ially ob-
scu e he influences o powe , capi al, and ex-
ploi a ion in shaping spa ial ela ions (see Saye ,
1984,1991), a ious s ands o con empo a y
geog aphical hinking make use o mo e pe mis-
si e, ela ional, and in ha sense “weak”no ions
o con ingency (O zeck and Hae, 2020). Fo ex-
ample, con ingency has become a well-es ablished
e m in new ma e ialis geog aphies on u ban
assemblages (McFa lane, 2011) and on o ma ions
o poli ics and go e nance (Wilson, 2004). Ac-
co ding o eminis poli ical heo is Lois McNay
(2014: 170), con empo a y mo e- han-human
s ands such as new ma e ialism, ac o -ne wo k,
and assemblage heo ies
All exp ess he co e idea ha a i alis ene gy in uses
he ma e ial wo ld, gi ing ise o a mani old dynamism,
ichness o being and limi less al e i y. The wo ld is
adically con ingen in he sense ha he e a e no
necessa y social o ms, bu his con ingency p oceeds
no om a cons i u i e lack …bu om a cons i u i e
pleni ude.
The use o con ingency in new ma e ialis
hinking hus demons a es ha he ins i u ed o ms
o con en ional (an h opocen ic) social o de s
cons ain he mul iple ene gies and agencies in-
ol ed in he complex assemblages o socio-poli ical
li e. Vi alis app oaches aim o expand he space o
li e by including all kinds o en i ies, using con in-
gency o acknowledge he ichness o he socio-
ma e ial wo ld o “ eali y”beyond he human. In
geog aphy, ac o -ne wo k heo y is, he e o e, con-
side ed an “app oach which emphasizes he high
deg ee o con ingency o he wo ld”(Bingham and
Th i , 2000: 282), while he Deleuzian assemblage is
concep ualized as a “con ingen a ia ion o imma-
nen consis ency”(Doel, 2000: 119).
The engagemen wi h i e e sible inde e minacy
o socio-poli ical li e also plays a significan ole in
pos - ounda ional hough . Howe e , in con as o
he posi i e, o a fi ma i e, unde s anding o con-
ingency in new ma e ialisms, pos - ounda ionalism
es s on he adical nega i i y, and on ological scope
o con ingency, i s “cons i u i e”lack o ou side.
When con ingency en e s he field o socio-poli ical
li e, i does no uncondi ionally e eal he ichness
and abundance (o possibili ies, ac o s, e c.) bu
a he a ealm o ambigui y o an “undecidable”
e ain. F om his undecidable e ain, no necessa y
cou se o di ec ion o poli ical ac ion ollows (see
No al, 2007). Pu di e en ly, decisions ha a e
being made emain ba ed wi h a deg ee o unde-
cidabili y, impossibili y, o simply, nega i i y,
488 P og ess in Human Geog aphy 47(4)
which again poin s o he o igins o con ingency—
i s cons i u i e, on ological non-necessi y.
Th ough his, con ingency allows o “ u nish an
always expansi e space o possibili y, no in he
sense ha ‘e e y hing goes’, bu by elimina ing he
possibili y o a final su u e”(Fiske , 2021:68).In
sum, and ne e heless, con ingency is no a po-
li ical dead end; a he , i a icula es i sel om
on ological nega i i y as an open space o
possibili y.
Ma cha (2007: 29) shows how such a nega i e
concep ion o con ingency eme ges om chal-
lenging o displacing he ounda ions upon which
any meaning, posi ion, o place o powe a e
ounded “as an ope a ional e m indica ing he
necessa y impossibili y, in scien ific e ms,o
sys emic closu e o , in on ological e ms, o he ull
beingness o beings o g ound.”Following such a
nega i e unde s anding, con ingency is no si ua ed
in he ealm o mul iple agencies and plen i ude ha
cons i u e a pa icula socio-spa ial condi ion.
Ra he , i is si ua ed in he space o nega i i y “ ha
e eals he ul ima e con ingency, agili y (and hus
changeabili y) o e e y symbolic cons ella ion”
(
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek, 2000: 221). In he cons i u ion o pa icula
places, a em(a)inde o nega i e con ingency i i-
a es, and hus inhibi s, his p ocess. A place like a
mall, o a e i o ial uni such as a na ion s a e,
canno be ully au ho ized, o malized, ma e ial-
ized, e c. because i is cons an ly infil a ed by he
ongoing p esence o i s own “con ingen ounda-
ions”(Bu le , 1992). In o he wo ds, om a pos -
ounda ional geog aphic pe spec i e, he e is no
place ha is no h ea ened by he absence o an
on ological ins ance (e.g., God, Na u e, Reason,
Technology, he Ma ke ) ha could e e se e as a
g ound o i s defini i e cons i u ion. In he ace o
he e e -possible collapse o socio-spa ial se ings,
he pe inence o conflic comes o he o e. As
Ma cha (2018:81–82) a gues:
Con ingency and conflic , eme ging om he same
sou ce, became wha one would call he eflec i e
de e mina ion o he social in i s o ali y: whe e e e y
social ac [o place, in ou case] can be expe ienced as
con ingen , conflic s a e bound o a ise o e i s ede-
sign; in u n, whe e e e y social ac [o place] can be
changed by way o conflic , i is possible o expe ience
i s essen ial con ingency.
In any a emp a making “place” o some hing,
he e is always he displacemen o some con in-
gency. A he same ime, howe e , any o hese
places a e inhe en ly bound o hei con ingen
ounda ions. No hing(ness) ul ima ely de e mines
he ole and unc ion o a place: Wi hou he hege-
monic powe o he Chu ch, a ca hed al migh lose i s
au ho i a i e au a; once globalized capi alism loses
i s sup emacy, financial cen e s and global ci ies may
lose hei ole as in e na ional ho spo s o inno a ion;
whene e a na ion s a e is called in o ques ion,
whe he by he slow dissolu ion o bo de lines o he
o ce ul imposi ion o new bo de s h ough mili a y
in e en ion, i s con ingen ounda ions come o
ligh . Conflic o an agonism, as we unpack below, is
he expe ience o con ingency in place, which is
sensed as a up u e. Ul ima ely, con ingency canno
ake place wi hou ha place alling apa . Such an
in e connec ed, ela ional unde s anding o conflic
and con ingency con as s wi h he mo e- han-human
unde s anding o con ingency ha loca es he la e in
a mul i ude o ac o s (see Simandan, 2018). While
new ma e ialis app oaches, and assemblage hinking
in pa icula , engage wi h “a symbiosis defined less
by conflic and con adic ion and mo e by he lines o
fligh ha un h ough hem”(McFa lane, 2011:
211), a pos - ounda ional unde s anding o con in-
gency is necessa ily conflic -o ien ed. Ul ima ely,
nega i e con ingency con amina es e e y symbiosis.
I is in he ace o his impossibili y o a fi ming o
mas e ing con ingency once and o all ha he
poli ical akes s age.
3 An agonism and space
Las ly, a pos - ounda ional geog aphy, o pos -
ounda ional poli ical geog aphy, is a icula ed in
he e e -ongoing, conflic ual oscilla ions be ween
poli ics and he poli ical. As b ieflyin oducedin
Sec ion II, poli ical di e ence con inuously pe mea es
ma e ial and discu si e spaces p egnan wi h nega-
i i y. Re ol ing a ound each o he in uns oppable
and inconclusi e ensions, poli ical di e ence ca a-
pul s he unde lying an agonism o socio-poli ical li e
Landau-Donnelly and Pohl 489
Kenis A and Ma hijs E (2014b) Clima e change and pos -
poli ics: Repoli icizing he p esen by imagining he
u u e? Geo o um 52: 148–156.
Kingsbu y P and Seco AJ (2021) A Place Mo e Void.
Lincoln: Uni e si y o Neb aska.
Kip e S, Goonewadena K, Milg om R and Schmid C
(2008) Space, Di e ence, E e yday Li e: Reading
Hen y Le eb e. New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Ki chin R (2009) Space II. In: Ki chin R and Th i N (eds),
In e na ional Encyclopedia o Human Geog aphy.
Ams e dam: Else ie , pp. 268–275.
Ko B (2010) The geog aphy o pa icipa ion. Thi d Wo ld
Qua e ly 31(5): 709–720.
Kühn M (2021) Agonis ic planning heo y e isi ed: The
planne ’s ole in dealing wi h conflic . Planning
Theo y 20(2): 143–156.
Laclau E (1990) New Reflec ions on he Re olu ion o Ou
Time. London, New Yo k: Ve so.
Laclau E and Mou e C (2001) Hegemony and Socialis
S a egy: Towa ds a Radical Democ a ic Poli ics.
London, New Yo k: Ve so.
Landau F (2019) Agonis ic A icula ions in he ‘C ea i e’
Ci y: On New Ac o s and Ac i ism in Be lin’s Cul u al
Poli ics. London: Rou ledge.
Landau F (2021) Agonis ic ailu es: Following policy
conflic s in Be lin’s u ban cul u al poli ics. U ban
S udies 58(12): 2531–2548.
Landau F and Pohl L (2021) Ruined museums: Explo ing
pos - ounda ional spa iali y. Epheme a: Theo y &
Poli ics in O ganiza ion 21(1): 197–228.
Landau F, Pohl L and Roskamm N (2021) [Un]G ounding:
Pos -Founda ional Geog aphies. Biele eld:
ansc ip .
La ou B (2018) Down o Ea h: Poli ics in he New
Clima ic Regime. Camb idge: Poli y P ess.
Le eb e H (1991) The P oduc ion o Space. Hoboken: Wiley.
Le eb e H (2009) S a e, Space, Wo ld. Minneapolis:
Uni e si y o Minneso a P ess.
Legacy C (2016) T ans o ming anspo planning in he
pos poli ical e a. U ban S udies 53(14):
3108–3124.
Legacy C, Cook N, Roge s D and Ruming K (2018)
Planning he pos -poli ical ci y: Explo ing public
pa icipa ion in he con empo a y Aus alian ci y.
Geog aphical Resea ch 56(2): 176–180.
Le o C (1988) Democ acy and Poli ical Theo y. Cam-
b idge: Poli y P ess.
Machin A (2013) Nego ia ing Clima e Change: Radical
Democ acy and he Illusion o Consensus. London:
Bloomsbu y Publishing.
MacG ego S (2014) Only esis : Feminis ecological
ci izenship and he pos -poli ics o clima e change.
Hypa ia 29(3): 617–633.
Madde n J F and Adey P (2008) Edi o ial: Spec o-ge-
og aphies. Cul u al Geog aphies 15: 291–295.
Maeseele P (2015) Beyond he pos -poli ical zei geis . In:
Hansen A and Cox R (eds). A Handbook o En i-
onmen and Communica ion. New Yo k: Rou ledge,
429–443.
Ma cha O (2007) Pos - ounda ional Poli ical
Though : Poli ical Di e ence in Nancy, Le o ,
Badiou and Laclau. Edinbu g: Edinbu gh Uni-
e si y P ess.
Ma cha O (2010) Die poli ische Di e enz. Zum Denken
des Poli ischen bei Nancy, Le o , Badiou, Laclau und
Agamben. Be lin: Suh kamp.
Ma cha O (2013) Das unm¨
ogliche Objek : Eine pos -
undamen alis ische Theo ie de Gesellscha . Be lin:
Suh kamp.
Ma cha O (2018) Thinking An agonism: Poli ical On ology
a e Laclau. Edinbu gh: Edinbu gh Uni e si y P ess.
Ma s on SA, Jones JP and Woodwa d K (2005) Human
geog aphy wi hou scale. T ansac ions o he Ins i u e
o B i ish Geog aphe s 30(4): 416–432.
Massey D (1992) Poli ics and space/ ime. New Le Re iew
1(196): 65–85.
Massey D (1994) Space, Place and Gende . Camb idge:
Poli y P ess.
Massey D (2005) Fo Space. London: Sage.
McAuli e C and Roge s D (2018) T acing esiden an-
agonisms in u ban de elopmen : Agonis ic plu alism
and pa icipa o y planning. Geog aphical Resea ch
56(2): 219–229.
McCa hy J (2013) We ha e ne e been “pos -poli ical”.
Capi alism Na u e Socialism 24(1): 19–25.
McClymon K (2011) Re i alising he poli ical: De el-
opmen con ol and agonism in planning p ac ice.
Planning Theo y 10(3): 239–256.
McFa lane C (2011) The ci y as assemblage: Dwelling and
u ban space. En i onmen and Planning D: Socie y
and Space 29(4): 649–671.
McNay L (2014) The Misguided Sea ch o he Poli ical:
Social Weigh lessness in Radical Democ a ic Theo y.
Camb idge: Poli y P ess.
496 P og ess in Human Geog aphy 47(4)

Me zge J, Allmendinge P and Oos e lynck S (2014) Planning
agains he Poli ical: Democ a ic Defici s in Eu opean
Te i o ial Go e nance. New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Meye M (2012) Placing and acing absence: A ma e ial
cul u e o he imma e ial. Jou nal o Ma e ial Cul u e
17(1): 103–110.
Milling on G (2016) “I ound he u h in Foo Locke ”:
London 2011, u ban cul u e, and he pos -poli ical
ci y. An ipode 48(3): 705–723.
Mou e C (2005) On he Poli ical. London: Rou ledge.
Mou e C (2013) Agonis ics: Thinking he Wo ld Poli i-
cally. London, New Yo k: Ve so.
No al AJ (2004) Hegemony a e decons uc ion: he
consequences o undecidabili y. Jou nal o Poli ical
Ideologies 9(2): 139–157.
No h P (2010) Eco-Localisa ion as a p og essi e esponse
o peak oil and clima e change. A sympa he ic c i-
ique. Geo o um 41(4): 585–594.
Oos e lynck S and Swyngedouw E (2010) Noise educ ion:
The pos poli ical quanda y o nigh fligh s a B ussels
Ai po . En i onmen and Planning A: Economy and
Space 42(7): 1577–1594.
O zeck R and Hae L (2020) Res uc u ing legal geog aphy.
P og ess in Human Geog aphy 44(5): 832–851.
Pee R (1998) Mode n Geog aphical Though . Camb idge
& Ox o d: Blackwell.
Pepe mans Y and Maeseele P (2016) The poli iciza ion o
clima e change: P oblem o solu ion? WIREs Clima e
Change 7(4): 478–485.
Pie ce J and Ma in DG (2015) Placing Le eb e. An ipode
47(5): 1279–1299.
Pile S (2005) Spec al ci ies: Whe e he ep essed e u ns
and o he sho s o ies. In: Hillie J and Rooksby E
(eds), Habi us: A Sense o Place. Sydney: Ashga e.
Pløge J (2004) S i e: U ban planning and agonism.
Planning Theo y 3(1): 71–92.
Pløge J (2018) Conflic and agonism. In: Gunde M,
Madanipou A and Wa son V (eds). The Handbook o
Planning Theo y. London, New Yo k: Rou ledge,
264–275.
Pohl L (2019) Hegel and he shadow o ma e ialis ge-
og aphies. ACME - An In e na ional Jou nal o
C i ical Geog aphe s 18(2): 285–307.
Pohl L (2020) Objec -diso ien ed geog aphies: The Ghos
Towe o Bangkok and he opology o anxie y.
Cul u al Geog aphies 27(1): 71–84.
Pohl L (2021) Localizing he oid: F om ma e ial o im-
ma e ial ma e ialism. In: Kingsbu y P and Anna Seco
(eds), A Place Mo e Void. Lincoln: Uni e si y o
Neb aska P ess, pp. 285–301.
Pohl L and Kingsbu y P (2021) The mos sublime geog-
aphe :
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek wi h place, dis ance, and scale. In:
Landau F, Pohl L and Roskamm N (eds). [Un]
G ounding: Pos -Founda ional Geog aphies. Biele-
eld: ansc ip , 197–216.
Pohl L and Swyngedouw E (2021a) ‘Wha does no wo k
in he wo ld’: The spec e o Lacan in c i ical poli ical
hough . Dis ink ion: Jou nal o Social Theo y online
fi s : 1–19.
Pohl L and Swyngedouw E (2021b) The wo ld and he
Real: Space and he poli ical a e Lacan. In: Landau
F, Pohl L and Roskamm N (eds). [Un]G ounding:
Pos -Founda ional Geog aphies. Biele eld: an-
sc ip , 43–62.
Pohl L and Swyngedouw E (2023) Enjoying clima e
change: Jouissance as a poli ical ac o . Poli ical
Geog aphy 101: 1–10.
Ranciè e J (1999) Disag eemen : Poli ics and Philosophy.
Minneapolis: Uni e si y o Minneso a P ess.
Robe s E (2013) Geog aphy and he isual image: A
haun ological app oach. P og ess in Human Geog-
aphy 37(3): 386–402.
Rose M, Bissell D and Ha ison P (2021) Nega i e ge-
og aphies. In: Bissell D, Rose M and Ha ison P (eds).
Nega i e Geog aphies: Explo ing he Poli ics o
Limi s. Lincoln: Uni e si y o Neb aska P ess, 1–38.
Roskamm N (2015) On he o he side o agonism: ‘The
enemy’, he ‘ou side’and he ole o an agonism.
Planning Theo y 14(4): 384–403.
Roskamm N (2017) Die Unbese z e S ad . Pos -
undamen alis isches Denken und das U banis ische
Feld. Basel: Bi kh¨
ause .
Roskamm N (2019) The Cons i u i e ou side o Plane a y
U baniza ion: A Pos - ounda ional Reading:1–21.
Online sel -publica ion: h ps://www.nikolai oskamm.
de/pd /Roskamm_Cons i u i eOu side.pd (accessed
20 Decembe 2022).
Rosol M (2014) On esis ance in he pos -poli ical ci y:
Conduc and coun e -conduc in Vancou e . Space
and Poli y 18(1): 70–84.
Saye A (1984) Me hod in Social Science: A Realis Ap-
p oach. London: Hu chinson.
Landau-Donnelly and Pohl 497
Saye A (1991) Behind he locali y deba e: Decons uc ing
geog aphy’s dualisms. En i onmen and Planning A:
Economy and Space 23(2): 283–308.
Schad-Spindle A, Landau-Donnelly F, F id ik S and
Ma cha O (2023) Konflik uelle Kul u poli ik. Be lin:
Sp inge .
Schu C (2013) Pe o ma i i y and an agonism as key-
s ones o a poli ical geog aphy o change. In: Glass
MR and Rose-Redwood R (eds), Pe o ma i i y,
Poli ics, and he P oduc ion o Social Space. New
Yo k: Rou ledge, pp. 95–120.
Sea le A (2020) Absence. En i onmen al Humani ies
12(1): 167–172.
Seco A J (2013) Topological ci y. U ban Geog aphy
34(4): 430–444.
Simandan D (2010) Bewa e o con ingency. En i on-
men and Planning D: Socie y and Space 28(3):
388–396.
Simonsen K (2004) Ne wo ks, flows, and fluids: Re-
imagining spa ial analysis? En i onmen and
Planning A: Economy and Space 36(8):
1333–1337.
Smi h N (1984) Une en De elopmen : Na u e, Capi al,
and he P oduc ion o Space. A hens: The Uni e si y
o Geo gia P ess.
Smi h RG (2003) Wo ld ci y opologies. P og ess in
Human Geog aphy 27(5): 561–582.
Soja EW (1989) Pos mode n Geog aphies: The Re-
asse ion o Space in C i ical Social Theo y. London,
New Yo k: Ve so.
Spa ke M (2005) In he Space o Theo y: Pos ounda ional
Geog aphies o he Na ion-S a e. Minneapolis,
London: Uni e si y o Minneso a P ess.
S a akakis Y (2007) The Lacanian Le : Psychoanal-
ysis, Theo y, Poli ics. Edinbu gh: Edinbu gh Uni-
e si y P ess.
S a hausen C (2009) In oduc ion: Thinking ou side in. In:
S a hausen C (ed), A Le is On ology: Beyond Rel-
a i ism and Iden i y Poli ics. Minneapolis, London:
Uni e si y o Minneso a P ess. xix–xl i.
Swyngedouw E (2007) The pos -poli ical ci y. In: BAVO
(ed). U ban Poli ics Now. Ro e dam: NAI Publishe s,
58–76.
Swyngedouw E (2009) The an inomies o he pos poli ical
ci y: In sea ch o a democ a ic poli ics o en i on-
men al p oduc ion. In e na ional Jou nal o U ban
and Regional Resea ch 33(3): 601–620.
Swyngedouw E (2010) The ze o-g ound o poli ics:
Musings on he pos -poli ical ci y. In: Kamine T,
Robles-D´
u an M and Sohn H (eds), U ban Asym-
me ies: S udies and P ojec s on Neolibe al U ban-
isa ion. Ro e dam: 010 Publishe s, pp. 52–61.
Swyngedouw E (2011) In e oga ing pos -democ a iza ion:
Reclaiming egali a ian poli ical spaces. Poli ical
Geog aphy 30(7): 370–380.
Swyngedouw E (2013) The non-poli ical poli ics o cli-
ma e change. ACME - An In e na ional Jou nal o
C i ical Geog aphe s 18(2): 1–8.
Swyngedouw E (2015) U baniza ion and en i onmen al
u u es: Poli icizing u ban poli ical ecologies. In:
Pe eaul T, B idge G and McCa hy J (eds). The
Rou ledge Handbook o Poli ical Ecology. New Yo k:
Rou ledge, 609–619.
Swyngedouw E (2018) P omises o he Poli ical: Insu gen
Ci ies in a Pos -Poli ical En i onmen .MA:MITP ess.
Swyngedouw E and Wilson J (2014) The Pos -poli ical and i s
discon en s. Spaces o Depoli icisa ion, Spec es o
Radical Poli ics. Edinbu gh: Edinbu gh Uni e si y P ess.
Tyne J and Inwood J (2014) Violence as e ish: geog aphy,
Ma xism, and dialec ics. P og ess in Human Geog-
aphy 38(6): 771–784.
U y J (2011) Clima e Change and Socie y. Camb idge:
Poli y.
Vanolo A (2019) Scenes om an u ban ou side: Pe sonal
accoun s o emo ions, absences and plane a y u -
banism. Ci y 23(4): 388–401.
Weisse F and Mülle -Mahn D (2016) No place o he
poli ical: Mic o-geog aphies o he Pa is clima e
con e ence 2015. An ipode 49(3): 802–820.
Williams P and McConnell F (2011) C i ical geog aphies
o peace. An ipode 43(4): 927–931.
Williams S and Boo h K (2013) Time and he spa ial pos -
poli ics o clima e change: Insigh s om Aus alia.
Poli ical Geog aphy 36: 21–30.
Wilson D (2004) Towa d a con ingen u ban neolibe alism.
U ban Geog aphy 25(8): 771–783.
Wylie J (2007) The spec al geog aphies o WG Sebald.
Cul u al Geog aphies 14(2): 171–188.
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek S (1989) The Sublime Objec o Ideology. London:
Ve so.
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek S (1994) In oduc ion: The spec e o ideology. In:
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek S (ed), Mapping Ideology. London: Ve so.
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek S (1999) The Ticklish Subjec : The Absen Cen e o
Poli ical On ology. London: Ve so.
498 P og ess in Human Geog aphy 47(4)
ˇ
Ziˇzek S (2000) Da Capo senza Fine. In: Bu le J, Laclau E
and
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek S (eds). Con ingency, Hegemony, Uni-
e sali y. Con empo a y Dialogues on he Le .
London, New Yo k: Ve so, 213–262.
ˇ
Ziˇ
zek S (2017) Incon inence o he Void: Economico-
Philosophical Spand els. Camb idge, London: The
MIT P ess.
Au ho biog aphies
F iede ike Landau-Donnelly is a poli ical heo is ,
u ban sociologis and cul u al geog aphe , based a
Radboud Uni e si ei in Nijmegen, NL. F iede ike
esea ches in e sec ions be ween poli ics, he poli -
ical and space as well as con es ed museums,
monumen s, a is ic ac i ism and conflic ual public
space(s).
Lucas Pohl is a human geog aphe and cu en ly
wo ks as a pos doc o al esea che in he Depa -
men o Geog aphy a Humbold -Uni e si ¨
a zu
Be lin. He wo ks on he in e s ices be ween cul-
u al geog aphy, u ban poli ical ecology, and
psychoanaly ic heo y wi h a ocus on social- and
spa ial heo y, buil en i onmen s, and poli ical
ac ion.
Landau-Donnelly and Pohl 499