World-making, desire, and the future

In this commentary responding to Sutherland's paper, I insist that human geographers must be explicit about the geographies we theorize from so as to avoid universalizing narratives. Engaging the work of Robyn Maynard and Leanne Betsamosake Simpson, I consider what forms of world-making are unaccounted for when post-capitalism is the sole analytic employed to envision the future. Then, I engage with Sutherland's explorations of hauntology and the atmospheric to consider how capitalism is haunted by colonial histories and how social movements evolve over time. Lastly, I respond to Sutherland's attention to desire, culture, and capitalism in his piece, drawing on the work of Brandi Summers to illustrate how capitalism's reliance on the 'fungibility of people/place' is also a deeply racialized logic. In sum, I question if post-capitalism is expansive enough to hold our collective imaginings of the future.

Automated summary

In this commentary, I argue that human geographers need to be specific about the geographical context in their theorizations to avoid universalizing narratives. By examining the work of Robyn Maynard and Leanne Betsamosake Simpson, I explore the unexplored forms of world-making when post-capitalism is the only analytical framework used to envision the future. I then delve into Sutherland's exploration of hauntology and the atmospheric, discussing how capitalism is haunted by colonial histories and how social movements evolve over time. Lastly, I respond to Sutherland's consideration of desire, culture, and capitalism, using Brandi Summers' work to demonstrate the racialized logic behind capitalism's reliance on the 'fungibility of people/place'. Overall, I question whether post-capitalism is comprehensive enough to encompass our collective visions of the future.