(Geo)Politic{s} and its Love Affair with [Brackets]
There seems to be a definite propensity for academics in the field(s) of (geo)politics and critical/radical geographies to (bracket) up as many of the complex ['general group identification words'] as possible. Is this a case of academic elitism that creates an ‘in-crowd’ by using a shared style of expression? Where the use of (brackets) allows the budding critical/poltico/social/economistic/philso/anthro/geo-graphers to to carve out and perform/create ‘their’ own {multiple} identities? Or perhaps it is to highlight the pluralities (multiple meanings) of self-reflexive and self-critical discourses that seem as resistant to self-identification as they do the labeling of others.
Or perhaps pragmatism holds the key - brackets provide a quick and possibly eloquent way of covering multiple meanings and identities all at once; one that allows academics to sidestep any real commitment to a particular label and so avoid arguments being sidetracked by endless rounds of name calling.
Either way, the written bracket {in relation to the meanings it hopes to convey in these contexts} occupies a rather ambiguous space. The mark itself is inherently divisive and yet its deployment in this manner acts as a point of convergence for multiple (possibly) disparate narratives and discourses.
Or perhaps I’m reading too much into it. Then again, there’s always the “/”.
Your own (possibly ironic) use of the textual devices you write about demonstrates the sheer utility of such // * () etc.
I advocate the use of such techniques, but only when it ‘adds’ something to the narrative. Whether this works or not is down to the judgement of the reader.
Otherwise I’d have to agree, you really are reading too much into it.
//
They may have utility, but writing is far more than utilitarian. The constant use of brackets appears like a continuous apology for the act of writing. Social science too often treats words as the awkward relation, and authors strive to overcome their apparent limitations and bounds, rather than engage with the medium in which they have invested their careers. And what about the colon? Even the name indicates some gutteral strain: a pause within the sentence to excuse some colonic passing.
It seems incongruous that in a journal blog pertaining to ‘affect’ and more-than-representational approaches that we are trying to assign (almost comical) meanings to colons. For me, colons, brackets, dots, whatever… these are not apologies for the act of writing - they are fully implicated in the act of writing. What I don’t understand here is why we are divorcing letters from symbols.
If writing is far more than utilitarian, then please, let colons speak for themselves.