Questions about the Anthropocene raise sensibility for critical approaches to theories of spaces in the context of globalization – and in so doing, overcoming the binary logic of culture, society, and nature. In this perspective, processes of space formation emerge through “(structured) configurations of social goods and people in places. Spaces come into being through action by synthesizing objects and people and arranging them relationally. In this process, actions are performed in pre-arrange…
Read moreQuestions about the Anthropocene raise sensibility for critical approaches to theories of spaces in the context of globalization – and in so doing, overcoming the binary logic of culture, society, and nature. In this perspective, processes of space formation emerge through “(structured) configurations of social goods and people in places. Spaces come into being through action by synthesizing objects and people and arranging them relationally. In this process, actions are performed in pre-arranged spaces and the way they occur in everyday action refers back to institutionalized configurations and spatial structures.” (Löw (2000) Raumsoziologie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M., p. 204) It is crucial to investigate the relationship between culture and nature and to ask questions that address how power and domination operate. In short, it is about discourses on how the planetary dimension – understood as a new critical relationality that also goes beyond Eurocentric epistemologies – of nature and culture can affect how research methods evolve. The following questions are central to this inquiry: How does this dimension transform issues that are discussed on a local or national level? What new aspects are revealed when the glocal is reconceptualized through the planetary dimension? Which role does the digital play in these processes? How does peoples’ relationship to what they understand as “nature” (that which surrounds and permeates them) change, and how does this bring about changes in behavior? When addressing these questions, we will also consider their intersections with the modalities of the world of machines, robotics, artificial intelligence, and genetics. In terms of educational science, therefore, we can ask which processes of subject formation in spaces that are conceived of as planetary expand the current discourse. Presently, “Smart environments are expanding beyond smart cities to encompass many different milieus, from smart forests to smart oceans and smart agriculture. Tech companies, environmental researchers, and state actors are participating in developing and expanding these digital systems, often aiming to address urgent environmental issues. But these ambitions also become apparent as emerging planetary modes of governance, the social–political effects of which have yet to be adequately assessed.” (Gabrys, 2020, p. 7).
