Search

The article, situated at the crossroads of hospitality studies, human‐animal studies and writing studies, offers a more-than-human perspective on hospitality by exploring the book The Language of Bugs (2018) by Chinese book designer and artist Zhu Yingchun and its crafting process. In existing scholarship, hospitality has been mainly considered in anthropocentric terms. The article suggests that the multispecies relations that unfolded between the artist, his garden and bugs not only unsettle and disrupt this anthropocentric bias but also complicate the predominant dyadic understanding of hospitality: their hospitable entanglement needs to be analysed as a triadic configuration, where there are no fixed positions, but each member may in its turn be placed in the position of the host/guest/third. Ultimately, the paradox of the hospitality offered by the artist to the bugs is that he was only possible to welcome their visitation by endangering the life or well-being of his other guests, the plants. The article also highlights the non-phonemic, material and performative ‘asemic’ aspects of writing by considering writing in terms of traces and lines and argues that bug-writing has great theoretical potential for liberating the notion of writing from its anthropo-, phono- and logocentric subordination.

In this article, we examine the effort of turning biowaste into an asset in the everyday practices of Finnish biogas plants. Drawing from social scientific waste studies as well as new materialist and posthumanist approaches, we approach biowaste as unruly, fluid matter inclined to leak and spill over and capable of affecting the possibilities of valuing it. Our analysis shows how biowaste resists the efforts to turn it into completely homogenous mass; how this mass has to be taken care of over the production process; and how it is not always clear whether the practices produce valuable assets or problematic excess. We argue that to better understand the possibilities for a transition towards a circular economy, it is important to acknowledge that the processing and valuing of waste does not offer complete control over it, but also requires careful alignment with waste material that does not always act as wished. publishedVersion

This paper explores relationships between environment and education after the Covid-19 pandemic through the lens of philosophy of education in a new key developed by Michael Peters and the Philosop...

A collection of 84 author's testimonies and workspace photographs between 18 March and 5 May 2020

The reduction of consumer and retail food waste is crucial for the transition towards a circular economy to take place. Based on an ethnography conducted in a supermarket in Finland, the article examines the hands-on practices of producing and preventing food waste in the retail sector, with a focus on the practices of framing and valuing products. We pay special attention to the process of ridding, which our analysis shows to be integral to selling food products and thus creating value. The findings shed light on how different modes of valuation, both monetary and non-monetary, related to the food products sometimes clash with each other in the everyday operations of the retail business, creating challenges for circular practices. Moreover, the analysis also brings to light how the supermarket practices do not only produce food or waste, but the categories of surplus food are much more varied and subtle. We claim that understanding the multiplicity of these categories, their enactment and mutual relations, and the different modes of valuation related to them is crucial for understanding how and why food waste is generated in the retail sector. Our analysis shows that rather than being only a managerial problem in the context of the circular economy, food waste is always enacted and unmade situationally, through constant hands-on work that also entails leakage and spillover. publishedVersion

While the circular economy invites us to realize the potential of the so-called ‘waste-based commodity frontiers’, reintegration into capitalist value chains is not the only way for discards to be resurrected. In this article, we examine the ways in which the collective of dumpster divers is organized in relation to giving, receiving and reciprocating of various waste-gifts. Our intention is not only to expand existing theorizations of the gift to new domains but also to critically interrogate them, identify their limitations and explore what dumpster diving can teach us about the gift. In particular, the analysis foregrounds the heterogeneity of gift practices. Arguing against universal notions of the gift, the article proposes that waste assumes four main forms of gifts and relations among dumpster divers: givenness (parasitic relation); solidarity-based giving (relation of reciprocity); free giving (asymmetrical relation); and non-giving, as a withdrawal from returning the discards to nature conceived as an Other (the relation of non-relation).

Dumpster diving for food implies using discarded edibles found in waste containers behind supermarkets, for example. People who voluntarily engage in this activity suggest that it is a form of hands-on social critique. In this article, we use interview materials to describe and conceptualize this practice. The main question we pose is: in what way is voluntary dumpster diving a ‘critical practice’? Drawing on the pragmatic sociology of critique, we show how it is a question of an entangled practice in multiple ways: first, dumpster diving is at once a means of contestation and experimentation on the limits of the contemporary form of life and yet simply a way of getting food for free or having fun with friends; second, while being a thoroughly rational endeavour for its practitioners, the activity is simultaneously rife with affect; finally, although dumpster divers are fully aware that they are dependent on the capitalistic form of food supply, the practice allows them to challenge its institutional self-evidences and distance themselves from it. publishedVersion

This interview with Olli Pyyhtinen explores his recent work on the writings of Georg Simmel. It focuses in particular upon his new book, The Simmelian Legacy. Taking that book as its focal point, the interview examines the influence of Simmel’s work, the key concepts and ideas it provides and how we might use it today.

The article proposes that if sociology is to make sense of a world that is ever more complex and complicated, it is important to reconsider the scale(s) of our relations and actions. Instead of assuming a nested vertical hierarchy of the micro to macro binary, scale should be treated not only as multiple, but also as something produced and sustained in practice. Coming to grips with the complex world, we are living in also necessitates attending to the conduits and connections between various sites, fields, and terrains to which our lives are entangled. The article concludes with a note on the marginalization of sociology from public discussions, and it argues that it is possibly by attending to ambiguity and to the unfinished making of our contemporary world that sociology might have the most to give to discussions about the economy, about the future of humanity, and how to organize society. Cet article suggere que si la sociologie doit nous eclairer sur le sens d'un monde de plus en plus complexe, il est important de revoir l’echelle de nos relations et actions. Au lieu d'assumer une hierarchie verticale de la dualite micro-macro, cette etendue doit etre traitee non seulement comme multiple, mais aussi comme une chose produite et soutenue par la pratique. Pour faire face a la complexite du monde dans lequel nous vivons, il faut aussi de s'occuper des conduits et connections entre des sites divers, des champs, et des terrains dans lesquels nos vies se deroulent. Cet article conclut avec une note sur la marginalisation de la sociologie dans les discussions publiques ; et il defend l'idee que c'est possiblement en apprehendant l'ambiguite et la construction incomplete de notre monde contemporain que la sociologie peut etre la plus fructueuse en termes de discussions portant sur l’economie, le futur de l'humanite, et l'organisation de la societe.

This article is an imagined dialogue between Weber and Simmel which makes a modest use of some of the resources of theatrical play in order to provide an overall portrait of both thinkers and to bring their thought to bear on our present. The dialogue consists of three acts focused on three central problematics in as many critical moments in Weber and Simmel’s lives: Act I takes place during the preparations for the first conference of the German Sociological Association and thus deals with the constitution of sociology as a socio-cultural science. Act II takes place amid the First World War and its theme is evidently politics. Finally, Act III, where our two characters correspond instead of maintaining a face-to-face dialogue, is situated towards the end of the war and focuses on the attitude to life and indeed to death, as Simmel’s tragic yet admirable death takes place then. A brief introduction explains how we tried to use the possibilities of the dialogical form to expound Weber’s and Simmel’s thought, to compel them to confront their own blind spots and ‘unthoughts’, as well as to explore new ways of teaching the classics and transmitting their thought.

In this experimental text, we reflect in the form of a dyadic teaching diary upon a course we recently taught together on the ‘sociological imagination’. One of the main aims we set for the class was to ponder how the social scientific imagination could be enriched, and figure out ways to stress its social and political relevance. From the pedagogical point of view, we wanted to create a course which would disrupt the students’ oft-criticized routine of rote-learning, and in which they would learn to use digital platforms for the purpose of producing and sharing knowledge, meet each other, and have their social scientific thinking refreshed and perhaps even renewed. In pondering the weeks spent together with our students, we suggest that what gradually happened in our ‘postdigital classroom’ and outside of it was an Event—something surprising and unexpected that could not be controlled entirely.

This article is a multi-authored response to an editorial ‵Postdigital Science and Education′ published in 2018 by Petar Jandrić, Jeremy Knox, Tina Besley, Thomas Ryberg, Juha Suoranta and Sarah Hayes in Educational Philosophy and Theory as a mission statement for the journal Postdigital Science and Education. Nineteen authors were invited to produce their sections, followed by two author-reviewers who examined the article as a whole. Authors’ responses signal the sense of urgency for developing the concept of the postdigital and caution about attempts at simplifying complex relationships between human beings and technology. Whilst the digital indeed seems to become invisible, we simultaneously need to beware of its apparent absence and to avoid over-emphasizing its effects. In this attempt, authors offer a wide range of signposts for future research such as ‘the critical postdigital’ and ‘postdigital reflexivity’; they also warn about the group’s own shortcomings such as the lack of ‘real’ sense of collectivity. They emphasize that postdigital education must remain a common good, discuss its various negative aspects such as smartphone addiction and nomophobia, and exhibit some positive examples of postdigital educational praxis. They discuss various aspects of postdigital identities and point towards the need for a postdigital identity theory. With these varied and nuanced responses, the article opens a wide spectrum of opportunity for the development of postdigital approaches to science and education for the future.

The article proposes that if sociology is to make sense of a world that is ever more complex and complicated, it is important to reconsider the scale(s) of our relations and actions. Instead of assuming a nested vertical hierarchy of the micro to macro binary, scale should be treated not only as multiple, but also as something produced and sustained in practice. Coming to grips with the complex world, we are living in also necessitates attending to the conduits and connections between various sites, fields, and terrains to which our lives are entangled. The article concludes with a note on the marginalization of sociology from public discussions, and it argues that it is possibly by attending to ambiguity and to the unfinished making of our contemporary world that sociology might have the most to give to discussions about the economy, about the future of humanity, and how to organize society. Cet article suggère que si la sociologie doit nous éclairer sur le sens d'un monde de plus en plus complexe, il est important de revoir l'échelle de nos relations et actions. Au lieu d'assumer une hiérarchie verticale de la dualité micro-macro, cette étendue doit être traitée non seulement comme multiple, mais aussi comme une chose produite et soutenue par la pratique. Pour faire face à la complexité du monde dans lequel nous vivons, il faut aussi de s'occuper des conduits et connections entre des sites divers, des champs, et des terrains dans lesquels nos vies se déroulent. Cet article conclut avec une note sur la marginalisation de la sociologie dans les discussions publiques ; et il défend l'idée que c'est possiblement en appréhendant l'ambiguïté et la construction incomplète de notre monde contemporain que la sociologie peut être la plus fructueuse en termes de discussions portant sur l'économie, le futur de l'humanité, et l'organisation de la société.