The paper delves on the meaning of the notion of Pluriverse, in the context of the failure of the Growth paradigm and of the worldwide spread of neoliberal rule. It considers the manifold perspectives by which the Pluriverse is conceived and addressed throughout the book - a radical diversity that does not prevent minimal bases of reciprocal understanding and joint action, according to Michael Walzer's notion of reiterative universalism. It focuses as well on some key issues. One is the squestion of work: that is, whether it is only an issue of rethinking work outside capitalist relations or of rethinking it entirely, as an ontological category. Another is technology and its socio-ecological impacts, and namely whether one should think in a reformist key or in a radically transformative one, whereby not only the means but also the goals are rethought. Yet another issue is that of hybridization and ontological fluidity as an allegedly emancipative theoretical and social movement move or process, or as one exposed to high risks of capture. A final topic is whether one is to follow the experimental catastrophism of some cutting-edge scholarship vis-à-vis the (re)emergent forces of Nature (i.e. 'geopower') or rather pursue a politics of friendship with the human and the nonhuman, recovering some intuitions of Benjamin and Adorno,
Pluriverso e politica dell'amicizia
Pellizzoni L
2021-01-01
Abstract
The paper delves on the meaning of the notion of Pluriverse, in the context of the failure of the Growth paradigm and of the worldwide spread of neoliberal rule. It considers the manifold perspectives by which the Pluriverse is conceived and addressed throughout the book - a radical diversity that does not prevent minimal bases of reciprocal understanding and joint action, according to Michael Walzer's notion of reiterative universalism. It focuses as well on some key issues. One is the squestion of work: that is, whether it is only an issue of rethinking work outside capitalist relations or of rethinking it entirely, as an ontological category. Another is technology and its socio-ecological impacts, and namely whether one should think in a reformist key or in a radically transformative one, whereby not only the means but also the goals are rethought. Yet another issue is that of hybridization and ontological fluidity as an allegedly emancipative theoretical and social movement move or process, or as one exposed to high risks of capture. A final topic is whether one is to follow the experimental catastrophism of some cutting-edge scholarship vis-à-vis the (re)emergent forces of Nature (i.e. 'geopower') or rather pursue a politics of friendship with the human and the nonhuman, recovering some intuitions of Benjamin and Adorno,I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
