A Blog for Everyone and No One
Interviewer: Jordan Skinner
JS: You explain in your book Terror and Territory that:
Creating a bounded space is already a violent act of exclusion and inclusion; maintaining it as such requires constant vigilance and the mobilization of threat; and challenging it necessarily entails a transgression.
It would seem that the thinker who is truly contemporary necessarily challenges boundaries by transgressing and modifying them. The thing that strikes me about your work is its ability to transgress traditional academic boundaries by weaving together geography, philosophy, literature, and politics.
My first question is interested in how you, as a prolific scholar, understand the need to move beyond your departmental focus into other areas of academic interest. Your own work seems to rest at that middle ground, the interstitial space, between geography, politics, and philosophy. While you are a professor of Political Theory and Geography, your research has influenced contemporary philosophical debates greatly.
What might philosophers gain by moving outside of their academic confines by taking note of developments in your field of Geography?
SE: Thanks for inviting me to do this interview Jordan. To answer the question it might be helpful to backtrack a bit. I wasn’t trained as a geographer, although I spent 11 years at Durham and it was really only towards the end of my time there that I began to self-identify in that way. My new post is, as you say, in both political theory and geography. Geography at Durham and Geography as a discipline generally were extremely welcoming to me, though I still feel a bit like I’m trespassing in their debates. My first degree was in Politics and Modern History, and I did a PhD in the same department on Nietzsche, Heidegger and Foucault, which was really political theory or political philosophy. I taught history, politics, political theory and political sociology during the PhD, and then taught in the Politics and International Studies department at Warwick for three years before moving to Durham. I’m now back in that department at Warwick. So I think that my background in different disciplines helps to make some sense of how I approach questions in geography today.
My first publications were in a range of places – the first five journal articles were in philosophy, geography, theology, geography and literary studies journals. I then realized I probably should direct a few to more political science or IR journals, only for them actually to come out after I’d moved discipline. I continue to move around in terms of reading, focus and intended audience today – my most explicitly political book, Terror and Territory, was written entirely while in a Geography Department; The Birth of Territory book draws on all the areas I’ve worked on before, with a much more explicit historical focus; and I’m currently working on questions in literature and on Foucault’s work. Foucault’s work doesn’t sit comfortably in any one discipline, and to make sense of his claims I’m reading extremely widely to get up to speed on his sources and engagements.
I’m always pleased to hear people in different disciplines are reading my work and finding it useful, and I’m extremely grateful for the invitations to speak to different audiences. One talk I gave in Canada was sponsored by the departments of Geography, Philosophy, Classics, Medieval Studies, Politics, and the Centre for International Studies—quite a forbidding audience! It was lovely that at the end one of the medievalists came up and discussed how my early work on Heidegger and Foucault had been useful to her, and to say how pleased she was that I was now engaging directly with medieval texts.
In terms of the thinkers I work on, I guess that all of them would have resisted the boundaries of disciplines today, with the probable exception of Heidegger. Kant was, of course, working in a very different type of university to the ones today, but even his work crossed a range of boundaries. While his lectures on Logic, Ethics and Metaphysics fit with established divisions of Philosophy, he was also lecturing on Anthropology and Physical Geography, as well as History, Education and so on. Heidegger would have been the most strict I suspect, usually saying that most other disciplines remained at a level separate from proper ontological enquiry, but his lectures show someone engaging with, for example, experimental biology, and he was apparently used to examine mathematics PhDs. And Foucault and Lefebvre were certainly resistant to easy categorization. Sloterdijk is, I think, trying to do something similar today.
I can’t see why people would want to confine themselves to a narrow literature and narrow set of disciplinary debates and restrictions. I’d like to think I work on problems, and problems tend to lead you in a range of different ways and to diverse literatures. Of course, no one can read everything, but it is striking how people often read so narrowly. There is a lot of work in philosophy on questions of space that operates without any regard to what geographers have said on the topic. There are exceptions of course, but a dialogue is only possible if both sides are reading and engaging with each other. And political philosophy seems to be taking an increased interest in questions of territory and boundaries, but sometimes without any recognition of existing discussion of the ideas in other disciplines. So I’d hope in those areas, though there are many others of course, philosophers might learn from geography.
JS:Keeping in line with your own trans-disciplinary scholarship, I would like to give the reader a brief overview on some of your work, both present and past, specifically your geo-spacial readings of figures such as Sloterdijk. First, can you talk about how you happened to came across the work of Peter Sloterdijk and how his work has challenged perspectives of space, territory, and boundaries? Sloterdijk said that when we talk about space today, we’re usually talking about space that’s already neutralized and homogenized. “Mastering space”, states Sloterdijk, “means eliminating its separating function and putting it to work exclusively as a conductor. To change the course of the world is above all to change the function of separators.” With this elimination of separation, how are we to now understand boundaries and spatiality?
SE: I had read Sloterdijk initially some years back – his early books Critique of Cynical Reason and Thinker on Stage. But it was only when I was working with Nigel Thrift on Society and Space that I began to think he was someone I wanted to work on in more detail. Nigel, Eduardo Mendieta and I decided to put together an issue of Society and Space on Sloterdijk, commissioning some translations, inviting some contributions and writing some of our own. That led to Polity contacting me and the edited book Sloterdijk Now. With Sloterdijk I wanted to get away from how Geography often reads thinkers—it waits for other disciplines to do the intellectual labour of translation, introduction and initial engagement, and then spatialises them. I felt that it was important that Geography be at the forefront of the engagement, at least in the second-wave of Anglophone appropriations after the two previously mentioned books which were translated in the 1980s. This is what Eduardo and I referred to as the ‘second coming’ of Sloterdijk. So in the Society and Space issue, and in the Sloterdijk Now book, there are new translations, and I’ve been asked by several presses for advice on what to translate of his work, though now it appears that the rights to just about everything have been sold. It’s a curious thing to watch—something similar happened with Badiou recently, or Agamben a little while back—you go from almost nothing of their work translated to almost everything in a very compressed timescale, much shorter than the periods of composition.
Sloterdijk’s most important insight, it seems to me, is to take seriously the idea that there could be a companion volume to Being and Time, that is Being and Space. I’ve tried to work through the implications of Heidegger’s thought for space in both Mapping the Present and to a lesser extent in Speaking Against Number, and others, notably Didier Franck, Jeff Malpas and Ed Casey have also explored this area. But Sloterdijk’s Spheres trilogy is the most extensive engagement with these questions, not in terms of Heidegger exegesis and critique (that’s more in Nicht gerettet: Versuche nach Heidegger), but in terms of working through ideas in detail.
In terms of space, I think we need to work through the different ways that space is understood and practiced. The view of space as a container, extended in three dimensions, calculable and controllable is still very dominant. In that way of thinking boundaries are produced through the connection of points, and separate areas or volumes from each other. But relational understandings of space are used to challenge this idea, and to thinking of space more as a verb or a process, ‘to space’, or ‘spacing’ rather than some kind of inert, static container or backdrop. Sloterdijk can, I think, be useful in that kind of work, though I still think Heidegger and Lefebvre are more useful in working through these kinds of issues.
My own work on territory has tried to reverse the standard way we think of boundaries and bounded space. In that I was inspired by a claim made by Paul Alliès in his book L’invention du territoire. Instead of seeing territory as a bounded space, in the sense that putting a boundary around something is sufficient to turn it into a territory, I’ve tried to argue that territory emerges as a particular political way of conceptualising space. Space, as this extended, three-dimensional way of making sense of the world, emerges in the scientific revolution. Its political counterpart is territory—although there are number of other factors, economic, strategic, legal and so on at stake. The boundaries that divide are dependent on that calculative determination of space, but not the other way round. What this understanding means is that getting rid of boundaries does not necessarily mean the end of the importance of territory or calculated space, but rather its reconfiguration. And Lefebvre is again useful here because he gets us to think about how such spaces, boundaries and territories are continually made and remade through the lived practices of those who live in them, cross them, fight for them and so on.
JS:My next questions are in relation to your interest and engagement with texts. You have published on Beowulf and land politics and you are working on a project called ‘Shakespearian Territories’. Can you explain a bit about your current project on Shakespeare? What is the textual function that boundaries and territory play and how is it represented in this literature?
SE: I’ve long had an interest in literary questions, and one of the freedoms that being in the departments I have is that it has given me the ability to indulge those obsessions. In The Birth of Territory there are readings of Beowulf—a shorter version of the article I published on this—of Sophocles’ Antigone, and a short reading of King Lear. I try to use these to illustrate some of the ways the relation between politics and place was thought of at the times discussed in the chapters. The Lear piece developed into a piece that was much too long to go into the book and has since been published in Law & Literature. One of those nice coincidences that the internet enables gave me a chance to present it. I’d posted on my blog about the paper on Lear, and then, much later, that I was going to the Association of American Geographers conference, which was in New York. Daniel Hoffman-Schwartz, who read the blog, was putting together a conference at NYU under the name of Anachronic Shakespeare, which was a couple of days before the AAG. Since I’d already be in New York, I became an affordable speaker for the event. I was somewhat apprehensive about speaking to literature scholars, but they were wonderfully supportive and enthusiastic. They gave me loads of suggestions for reading and development, which were really helpful, and Anselm Haverkamp suggested the publication outlet.
By the time I spoke at the conference I’d already got a draft of a paper on the corporeal senses running through Coriolanus (since published in a book), and had lots of notes for a paper on Richard II. The NYU conference made me feel this was definitely worth pursuing. Since then I’ve presented bits of the project on the plays already mentioned, and on The Tempest, Pericles, Othello, Hamlet and Henry V. The idea has been to talk about different plays each time, even if the overall framing of the talk is shared between them. This has given me a chance to try out ideas, and also forces me into the discipline of writing parts of the project along the way. The aim is to use various plays to illuminate different aspects of the question of territory. I’ve made the argument that territory is not a simple political and spatial term, but one that has many different dimensions—economic, strategic, legal, technical, etc. So the idea is to use Richard II to think about the economic; Henry V on the legal and the history plays genrally to think about contestation and conquest, and the question of succession; King Lear to think about division and land politics; the colonial through The Tempest, Pericles and Othello; a range of plays to think about techniques and measurement; the threat of external powers and the fear of vulnerability through Hamlet. That’s the rough outline as it stands. I’m hoping that there will be a book bringing these readings together.
I’ve also been trying to think a bit more generally about the question of literary geographies – of the geographies of the book (as a wonderful collection Charlie Withers and Miles Ogborn put together discusses) but also the geographies discussed by literary texts such as poems, plays and novels. I put together a virtual theme issue of Society and Space on this question, drawing papers from the archive to showcase some word doing this, and there is also a very useful site called Literary Geographies that has comprehensive biographies. One of the last things I did at Durham was organize a workshop on how literary geographies might help us to think through some questions politically. It’s an area that might be worth working on more in the future – a possibility for interdisciplinary dialogue.
JS: You mentioned your blog progressivegeographies.com as well as the journal that you edit called Society and Space. Do you you find that blogs, open access texts, or international journals with companion websites (such as Society and Space) alter our understanding of borders? Are we to view such e-platforms as a textual territory that contains no boundaries? What does this mean for the collegial territory?
SE: I’m a bit hesitant to use the term ‘territory’ to describe those kinds of things. For me, territory is a term that can lose its usefulness if it is applied too indiscriminately. I’m not convinced by arguments that territories exist at all scales, from the local to the global, and virtually, and that certain kinds of behaviour – bounding, marking, controlling, expelling, etc. – are sufficient to create a territory. In my argument, territory is a term that has a quite precise historical, geographical and politically specificity, and it’s important to understand those kinds of issues in order that we can appreciate the kinds of challenges and changes that are taking place today.
In terms of publishing, even though I’d be resistant to the precise language, I do think that something interesting and in its own way revolutionary is happening. Society and Space is part of the Environment and Planning series of journals, owned and published by Pion. Pion is a small, independent publisher, and apart from the Environment and Planning journals only publishes a few other titles, all in quite different fields. I’ve been editor since 2006, and one of a team of editors since 2013, and in that time we’ve tried to make the journal more responsive to a fast-changing publishing landscape. The launch of the open site – http://www.societyandspace.com – was an attempt to allow the editors to be more responsive to events without waiting on publisher timescales; to move book reviews out of the print and online journal and increase their frequency; and to allow a space where supplementary material could be published. We have been doing ‘virtual theme issues’ where we bring together around 10 papers from the archive on a specific theme, partly as a way of making older papers open access. They have got a fair bit of attention, and while some are not particular to the moment of their publication, such as the one I did on ‘Literary Geographies’; the first one I put together on ‘Urban Disorder and Policing’ was a quick response to the events in London and other English cities in 2011. We realised that academic responses to those events would take a long time to appear, so we thought that making available papers from the archive on related topics might be an interesting contribution – more considered than journalism and faster than academic reflection.
There is much more that the site could do, but it depends on the energies of the editorial team either to write or to commission material. I would say that my own blog, Progressive Geographies, has been something I’ve enjoyed greatly in the nearly four years since I launched it. Much of it is a kind of noticeboard or public notebook, where I link to books, talks, videos, events and so on that I find interesting; but it’s also given me a forum to talk about my own work. In terms of the day-to-day posts, it’s not so much putting up drafts of papers, although some people use blogs very effectively for that, but more a case of writing about the process of research. Some of the most popular posts have been about writing and publishing, and it’s also a good way to publicize things I’m speaking at. I’ve also used it as an archive for published work that people can download. It’s read by far more people than I ever imagined, and this is a growing audience. There are inevitably limits to this way of talking about our work, but the blog has visits from people all over the world and it does appear to break down some of the barriers that there might be in terms of accessibility. I’m surprised more academics haven’t made use of the medium.
JS: Returning to questions of your academic research, I understand that your latest book called The Birth of Territory has recently been published by University of Chicago Press. I know that you have many detailed descriptions of this book on your blog, but could you give a brief compendium of this project here? Is this book a historical genealogy of the concept of territory? If so, what articulation you hope to provide for a contemporary understanding of territory, space, and borders?
SE: I was working on this for many years, with initial thinking about it going back to shortly after I was awarded my PhD in 1999, and the chapter on Greece was drafted while a visiting scholar at the University of Virginia in 2001. I’ve done many things alongside it, or put it to one side while I concentrated on something else, but it’s been the major project for more than a decade. It’s a big book of 200,000 words, almost 500 pages in print. It basically offers a rereading of Western political thought from the perspective of the relation between place and power, in order to trace how the modern concept of territory emerges out of a range of different ways of thinking. The first chapter is on Ancient Greece, then one on Rome from city to empire, and then four or five chapters—depending on how you date things—on the Middle Ages. The Medieval part was the real surprise for me. I was clear in my mind that I didn’t want to gloss over this period, as so many accounts do, jumping from Aristotle to Machiavelli, or picking token thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas. But I never imagined I would spent over half the book, and more than half the research time, on this period. I think there are some of the best bits of the book in these chapters, and I found the research on this fascinating and daunting. I think the Middle Ages is absolutely central to creating the elements of our modern way of thinking about politics, even if often it is only in creating or realizing a problem that comes to be resolved much later, with different concepts. The last part of the book takes it up to the early eighteenth century, when I suggest that the modern concept of territory hasn’t just emerged, but has become so commonplace that it is increasingly difficult for thinkers to imagine alternative orderings of political geography.
I try to argue that territory is far from the straight-forward concept that people imagine it to be, where it is defined as a bordered space under the control of a group, such as a state. Rather I try to suggest that there are a range of questions to account for—principally economic, strategic, legal and technical ones. So I attempt to trace these different lineages, and yes, I do think it works as a genealogy. I try to utilize the insights of the German tradition of Begriffsgeschichte or conceptual history, and the Anglophone work on contextual history alongside this. But I think that Foucault, while extremely important for the project in its conceptual and methodological aspects, is misleading on the specific question of territory. Whereas Foucault sees territory as crucial to medieval political organization and enduring until Machiavelli and other figures of the early modern period, only to be supplanted with a new emphasis on population, I take a rather different line. I actually suggest that ‘territory’ emerges later than Foucault thinks it disappears. The notion of territory seems to me to be largely absent in someone like Machiavelli, and the temporal powers theorists of the Middle Ages are grasping for a concept like this, without really articulating it. I think that the legal developments in 14th century Italy in figures like Bartolus of Sassoferrato and Baldus de Ubaldis are really important here, in the linking together of territorium and jurisdiction, but this really only comes into political theory in the 17th century. But here it’s not the canonical figures that I think are central to the story—the likes of Hobbes or Locke. Rather the working through of these ideas is found largely in Germany, in debates about the future of the Holy Roman Empire. So figures like Johannes Althusius, Andreas Knichen and Gottfried Leibniz are important. And through this period there are developments in cartography, land surveying, statistics and the census and so on. I essentially argue that the emergence of territory as an explicit object of government parallels, rather than precedes, the emergence of population. I think it is precisely the same kind of calculative rationalities that shape population that shape territory. In that sense it’s a Foucauldian argument, even if I take issue with some of his specific claims. The book’s title The Birth of Territory, with its nod to Foucault and of course to Nietzsche, attempts to show that.
JS: I understand that you have taken much interest in the contemporary philosophical turn toward speculative realism and object oriented ontology. Can you explain a bit about how you first came to read figures such as Graham Harman and Quentin Meillassoux (among others) and how these figures may have impacted some of your own philosophy? Have you critically engaged with this philosophical development? Do you find that geography might have a privileged perspective in order to develop such a realism?
SE: I not sure how I first came to be aware of Graham Harman’s work—though I did read Tool Being and Guerilla Metaphysics together, so it was probably around 2006 or so. I remember being really struck by how this was the most original take on Heidegger I’d read in ages, and how it opened up new ways of thinking with (and against) him. I was introduced to Quentin Meillassoux’s work through the journal Collapse: Philosophical Research and Development, which is a beautifully produced and extremely thoughtful resource. Meillassoux’s challenge to take the world seriously resonated with some of the issues I was grappling with. I went away and read Après la finitude immediately, and spoke about it to geographers at the Royal Geographical Society in 2007 in a session on Alain Badiou.
Through engaging with this work I came across Harman’s blog, and through that was introduced to a range of the other thinkers within this loose movement. These blogs were an inspiration to my own involvement in blogging. I’d especially point to Paul Ennis’s Another Heidegger Blog, which ran an interview with me and later reprinted it, along with a range of other interviews of figures including Harman in Post-Continental Voices. I’ve still not met Harman or Meillassoux though there has been some email correspondence and we’ve published both of them in Society and Space.
I first wrote about Meillassoux in a piece entitled ‘Dialectics and the Measure of the World’ which appeared in 2008 in Environment and Planning A. It’s a bit of a Frankenstein’s monster of a piece, partly being a response to a set of papers delivered at the Association of American Geographers in 2007 on dialectics—which also appear in the same journal issue—and the paper just mentioned from the Badiou session later that year. It looks, in brief, at Meillassoux’s arguments about the arche-fossil—traces of existence before anything that could have perceived that existence. I try to suggest that what Harman calls “an unexpected battlefield for continental thought” is, in part, a geologic or physical geographical challenge to a lot of the theory in human geography. I try to think through some of those complexities, but that piece is really an indication of tensions and issues rather than a working through of them in detail.
In a longer piece—unpublished but which I’ve given as a lecture a few times—I try to discuss the question of fossils in more detail. My focus is on fossilised traces of animal and plant life, rather than arche-fossils, but the set up of the problem is indebted to Meillassoux. However I suggest that various figures of the tradition actually do account for fossils in some detail—my examples are Leibniz, Kant and Foucault—and with the epistemological and ontological questions they raise about the human relation to the world. It therefore tries to think through what Meillassoux and Harman call correlationism. I spent a lot of time when I was a visitor in the Humanities Research Centre at the Australian National University in 2011 working through writings on paleontology, and especially its history. It was fascinating reading, and though I’ve yet to get the paper to a point where I feel comfortable trying to publish it, working on it shaped how I thought about a range of questions. In particular it links to a broader project, shared with some other geographers, of trying to rethink the notion of ‘geopolitics’. All too often, geopolitics is seen as a synonym for global politics, or ‘big’ political geography. But what would happen if we took the notion of ‘geo’ in the same way as the ‘geo’ of geography, looking at the politics of land, of earth, of earth processes? In this it is part-inspired by Elizabeth Grosz’s notion of geopower. It relates to work I’ve done about how we should take the notion of the world seriously in our work on the global—indebted to a wide range of philosophers of world, such as Heidegger, Eugen Fink, Kostas Axelos and Peter Sloterdijk. So I have this notion of a project that examines a range of questions as ways of thinking about the world and the earth within a broad political register. I’m not quite sure what form this will take, but work o within broadly conceived ‘speculative realism’ will feature in it in some way.
JS: I want to end here, Stuart, by thanking you for the taking time to answer these questions. It is always compelling to step into the life of the mind; by this I mean to say, it is engaging to hear about the formulation of thought: the journey taken by the thinker. Therefore, would you please conclude this interview with your own closing remarks regarding this journey, this formulation of thought? But, I must insert a caveat here, for when I ask about the formulation of thought, I am not only referring to the past: I am also referring to how the future is evolving. Can you, therefore, conclude with remarks regarding the future formulations of thought; both the formulation of your thought and the formulation of the overarching philosophical milieu?
Thanks Jordan. I do think of my own work as trying to work in an investigative manner, to try to find out things I didn’t know before, and to try to write things that haven’t already been written. This is one of the reasons I struggle with some elements of the grant proposal process—if I knew what I was going to find out, not just in terms of the content but also the form, I would stop and do something else. So it’s a balance of trying to write a proposal that’s open enough to future surprise to keep me interested but specific enough and sufficiently developed to convince the grant body. With The Birth of Territory I managed it, though the project was in a rather different format to how it developed and there were lots of things I thought would be central that turned out not to be so crucial, and certainly many things that I realized in the research were essential to the story I was trying to tell.
I am trying to keep this balance for my own future work. I have some ideas that are quite worked out and I just need the time to work on them to realize them—the Shakespeare project, for instance, or a book I am currently writing on Foucault. Even with those I hope that I can keep the project alive for me, and put off knowing exactly what I will be saying until as late as possible. The surprises, the problems, the reformulations are part of the best experience of writing. With the book I wrote on Lefebvre I reached a point about two thirds of the way through writing it when I knew exactly what I needed to do to finish it, and it became a real slog to complete. Other ideas, such as the project on the world, are much less specified. This is partly because I’ve not done the work, but also because that project didn’t get the funding I applied for, and so I’m rethinking how I might do it. I’m trying to work out how a range of issues I’m interested in that have some relation to territory but are not solely concerned with it—such as volume, the urban, the world, earth, geopolitics—might be worked together into something cohesive. I don’t want to bind myself too tightly to a specific approach or focus.
The Progressive Geographies blog has been interesting for this purpose, because I’ve been able to write about the process of writing, rather than just give small samples from the writing. In that sense I write on the blog about my writing as much, and probably more, than putting my academic writing on the blog. It’s very definitely not a case of pasting blog posts together to make articles or chapters. But people reading it will get a sense of my interests as they see the posts. Many these days, and this is partly a reflection of time and other commitments, are simply links to other things—a new book, a conference, an interesting use of mapping, some good photographs, etc. But those also track what I’m interested in and reading. So a few people said that you could trace the emergence of my Shakespeare book through things I said on the blog, and that it came out of reading and thinking I was sharing in public. I think the more recent focus on seeing how work on the urban and urbanization could relate to my work on territory, in hopefully a two-way exchange, can also be traced through things on the blog. I do still post about things that I’m not actively working on—new books of Heidegger’s writings, for instance—but much of it has a focus dictated by my current interests.
In terms of the broader question, beyond my own work, I’m not sure I’m able to give any clear signals. It’s been interesting, following many blogs, to see ideas discussed well before the book hits the shelves or the pdf of the article is available. Having access to recordings of lectures given in places I could never have been gives a good sense of the cutting edge of debates, in a way that the best networked person could only dream of only a few years ago. The speculative realism movement, such as it was and remains a movement, has been associated with blogs, for good and ill. Obviously a lot of things posted to blogs are ephemeral, but I do think it’s got to a stage where if you’re not at least reading blogs regularly then you’re missing out. I find them much more useful than the big mailing lists – crit.geog.forum or philos-l for example – for knowing what is going on.
All that said, it’s books that still dominate the kinds of work I am most interested in. And in the Anglophone world, it is still an issue of what gets translated. I keep a reasonably attentive eye on what’s going on in French philosophy, but beyond that I’m at the mercy of translations, not just in terms of the actual translation, but the political economies that dictate why some people are translated and not others, which books, and with which publishers and at what timescales. This relates to what I said about Sloterdijk, Badiou and Agamben in answer to an earlier question. Robert Esposito has moved from being largely unknown to having several books translated or forthcoming in quite a short period; Giacomo Marramao is also very interesting with a book with Verso and another short book in English but little else available. So book catalogues of places like Polity, Continuum, University of Minnesota Press, Verso and so on are also a good indication of the texts we’ll be discussing in the years to come.