![]() ![]() This is the world of colonial modernity’s racialized relations of production. We characterize this ontology as a world in which land and landscape are collapsed into territory – a bounded, possessed collection of qualities value can be extracted from. By closely considering some of the resulting landscapes, we argue that a significant consequence of this monopoly has been the emergence of what we call the territorial ontology. ![]() We use this distinction to argue that the 1913 Land Act effectively created a white monopoly on the production of landscape. ![]() Landscape, by contrast, is qualitative and emerges as habitation’s embodiment of the history of inhabitants’ activities, projects and livelihoods. Land, Ingold suggests, is abstracted, quantitative and interchangeable. Ingold has used Marx’s distinction between exchange value and use value to distinguish between land and landscape.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |