Home Education Knowledge and Action
To conclude this chapter, I offer a summary of the main steps in my argumentation. First, I have tried to show that rationality was separated from reason during the philosophical development of modernity and that it assumed a universal and fixed principle of rationality. In late-modern times this discernment led to recognition of different types of rationality, each with its own logics of deliberation and argumentation. Second, I have shown how these views are intricately involved in late-modern geographical theories of action and in language-pragmatic approaches in geography. At the same time, I have pointed out the mentalistic inheritances of this approach. Third, I have noted that proponents of poststructuralist theories, in a quest to emphasize the structural aspects of discourses, seem to have totally done away with rational deliberations. However, advocates of full-fledged theories of practice do not go that far and really seek a middle road. Fourth, I have tried to show that newer forms of discourse theory in the tradition of Laclau and Mouffe (1985) seem to offer this space for a real theory of practice and seem to reopen an opportunity for reflective political deliberations in the different fashions of discursive articulation. Finally, I argued that combining Laclau and Mouffe’s discursive approach with new forms of rationalization that include transversal reason (Schrag, 1992; Welsch, 1997) might result in a framework for a rational approach to the politics of space as a core business for human geographers.
|< Prev||CONTENTS||Next >|