| Popis: |
In receiving the constructive commentaries on our article, we would like to gratefully reply through an invitation to remain in a sort of middle passage between hyperbolic and litotic attitudes towards map theory and research on mapping practices. While thinking hyperbolically functions to destabilise both cartographic representation and nation as categories, thinking litotically becomes a way to reason (and empirically investigate) in terms of contingency, contextuality, circulation, materiality, and affectivity. Embracing a post-representational and everyday perspective on both mapping and nationhood, we acknowledge both the high risk and potential of this style of thinking and researching maps and nations. |
